Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Forestry

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that tree seedlings and transplants for large-scale planting are in short supply and whether, in order to encourage owners of private woodlands to dedicate their land under the Forestry Commissioners' Dedication Scheme and to afford the maximum assistance to those who have already done so, he will arrange for plants which are surplus to the requirements of the Forestry Commissioners to be offered, as a first priority, to owners who have dedicated their woodlands.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I am aware of the general shortage of seedlings and transplants for large-scale planting. The Forestry Commissioners recently met representatives of private woodland owners and of the nursery trade and agreed to release to the trade from eight to 10 million plants from Commission stocks. Maximum retail prices were agreed between the owners and the trade and have been published. The Commissioners do not sell plants surplus to requirements other than through the trade. If owners of dedicated land experience difficulty in obtaining plants within this arrangement they should get into touch with the Forestry Commission whose Scottish office is at 25, Drumsheugh Gardens.

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are

employed by the Forestry Commission in Scotland; and what is the total annual cost and the total annual revenue.

Mr. Westwood: At 30th September, 1946, the number of people employed by the Forestry Commission in Scotland was 2,933. In the year ended 30th September, 1946, payments covering all the Commission's activities in Scotland amounted to a total of £750,000 and receipts to £160,000.

Carradale Harbour

Major McCallum: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the position now in regard to the development of Carradale Harbour, in view of the announcement recently made public that Carradale Pier is to be closed at the end of this month because of its dangerous condition.

Mr. Westwood: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer I gave on this subject yesterday.

Major McCallum: While I apologise for not being in my place yesterday when this answer was given, may I ask the Secretary of State today whether he can do anything to speed up the deliberations of the Development Commissioners, to which he referred yesterday, because this project has been in hand for months, if not years? No progress seems to be made in the discussions and deliberations, and we should like to see whether something cannot be done.

Mr. Westwood: We must await the result of the application made by the county council, but I shall certainly do all that is possible to help speed up a decision on this particular question.

Employment Schemes

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the continued increase in unemployment in Scotland, any interim schemes of employment are under consideration by his Department.

Mr. Westwood: Schemes for which my Departments are responsible, such as housing water and drainage and hydro-electricity, are already providing a substantial amount of employment and will provide more as they get fully under way. In addition, the establishment of new industrial estates now being promoted by my right hon. Friend the President of the


Board of Trade, the creation of new towns, the recently announced scheme for the rehabilitation of land in the development area, and work in connection with forestry schemes will result in the progressive expansion of employment facilities on a substantial scale. Work on all these schemes is being pressed forward as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Willis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the schemes mentioned in the last part of his answer will not bear fruit until probably 1948, and the object of the Question is to ask what is being done to assist the unemployed during this interim period which may extend for two years or more?

Mr. Westwood: I am speeding up the decisions which are required in connection with the allocation of the grants for rural water supplies, and I have pressed the local authorities to give me their priority schemes by the 31st of this month with a view to starting from £15 million to £16 million worth of work in connection with housing and rural water schemes.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is the House to understand that the only land in Scotland which falls to be rehabilitated is that in the development area?

Mr. Westwood: No, Sir.

Mr. Scollan: Is it not the case that the bulk of this problem lies in the industrial areas, and that the outline scheme which my right hon. Friend has given will be of no help at all?

Mr. Snadden: Is it not a fact that in connection with hydro-electric schemes a very large proportion of the work is done by German prisoners of war, and would it not be better if Scottish workers were employed there?

Mr. Stokes: It is cheaper to employ slaves.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider civil aviation in Scotland as a means of helping to cure unemployment?

Mr. Westwood: That is not a matter which concerns my Department. As the hon. and gallant Member knows full well, it is the concern of the Ministry of Civil Aviation.

Mr. Hector Hughes: How many of these unemployed persons are people who have been demobilised and are in process of being absorbed into industry?

Mr. Westwood: I cannot say without notice.

Oil Pipeline Construction (Compensation)

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to alleviate the loss sustained by the tenant of Little Rahane and Meikle Rahane farms at Rosneath by the destruction of dykes and fences during the construction of the Finnart and Rosneath oil fuel pipeline in 1943; and if he is aware that the land speculators, who purchased the estate and subsequently sold out, collected the compensation for damage and have refused to pay the tenant the cost of repairs, as a consequence of which food production is being retarded.

Mr. Westwood: The settlement of claims for compensation for damage arising from the laying of the pipeline referred to is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. The question of payment to the farm tenants of the cost of repairs to the landlord's equipment would appear to be one for settlement between the landlord and tenant in terms of the contract of tenancy, and I am not in a position to answer my hon. Friend's question on this point. The agricultural executive committee for the district have reported that the state of the dykes and fences affected by the work is having no appreciable adverse effect on food production.

Mr. McKinlay: Do I take it that my right hon. Friend's Department accepts no responsibility for the agricultural development in that area? Is he also aware that the surveyors to Gabriel Wade and English, the speculators concerned, were awarded £77 compensation on the distinct understanding that they would pay for reinstatement work, that my constituent had no replies to his letters, and, in other words, that they have stolen £77 belonging to the tenant? Could I have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that he will not dismiss this matter in a summary manner and that his Department has an interest in the matter?

Mr. Westwood: My Department certainly has an interest in agricultural development. All I can do in this case will be done if it comes within the ambit of my Department and within my Department's powers.

Mr. McKinlay: I wish to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Proposed Road, Isle of Lewis

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is reconsidering the application of the county council of Ross and Cromarty for financial assistance towards the cost of constructing the Tolsta-Ness road, Isle of Lewis, in view of its value to land settlement, tourist and transport improvement.

Mr. Westwood: I have the county council's application under consideration, and I am arranging for a survey to be made of the area which would be opened up by the proposed road with a view to examining afresh the possibilities of development.

Mr. MacMillan: May I assure my right hon. Friend that his reply will give the greatest satisfaction?

Landlord and Tenant Act (Extension)

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation for the protection of traders in Scotland as is provided in England under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, or by what other means does he propose to achieve this end.

Mr. Westwood: When the English Act was passed in 1927, the exclusion of Scotland was deliberate—there did not happen to be a Labour Secretary of State for Scotland—but the then Secretary of State undertook to consider its extension to Scotland if any widespread demand was made. There has been no widespread demand. The matter merits and will receive consideration, but there is no immediate prospect of legislation.

Mr. Willis: May I take it from that answer that when an opportunity occurs, this omission in the law of Scotland will be remedied?

Mr. Westwood: I have already indicated that the matter is receiving consideration because we think it merits consideration, but I can give no promise with regard to legislation.

Mr. Janner: When my right hon. Friend is considering this matter will he bear in mind that the Landlord and Tenant Act is not half sufficient to protect those whom it intends to protect, and will he give his colleagues the benefit of his advice in order to make it a really good Measure instead of the Measure that it is at present?

Mr. Westwood: My hon. Friend can rest assured that so far as possible we always take into account all relevant considerations.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: What is the value in giving the matter consideration if there is no prospect of legislation?

Mr. Westwood: I was dealing with the immediate prospects. If we find that it is absolutely necessary there might be time, possibly not next year nor the year after, but some time, to introduce legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (SCOTLAND)

Aberdeenshire

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Swedish houses are under construction and roofed in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire but cannot be completed for lack of fittings; and how many have been completed.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): In Aberdeen, four Swedish timber houses are completed and 92 are under construction. In Aberdeen County, 32 houses are under construction. All of the houses under construction are roofed and components are now available for the houses as and when required.

Mr. Spence: Can the Minister give an assurance that, within a reasonably short time, these houses in Aberdeenshire will be completed?

Mr. Buchanan: I am hopeful that almost all of them will be completed this side of the New Year.

Isle of Lewis

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the reason for the delay in making available to the applicants in the Isle of Lewis the temporary houses offered in May to the county council of Ross and Cromarty.

Mr. Buchanan: The delay is due to difficulties experienced by the county council in selecting a suitable site for the houses. The site recently selected has still to be serviced by the council before house erection can commence.

Mr. MacMillan: Does my hon. Friend mean that the Scottish Office is going to allow the Ross-shire local authority to delay accepting an offer of houses, or is some action to be taken to hustle them along?

Mr. Buchanan: I had a meeting with this council at the end of May last. They put forward a proposition for Army huts, and I thought I had improved upon it by giving them an offer of temporary houses instead. They accepted that but, according to my information, they have had great difficulty in getting a site. I have arranged that as soon as they can start servicing, this site will be given as high a priority as possible.

Mr. MacMillan: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is normally very little difficulty in the Isle of Lewis in obtaining a site, and that much of the land is under public ownership, vested in the Stornoway Trust?

Mr. Buchanan: That may be, but my hon. Friend has no right to expect me to have power to supersede the local authority. That must be done by the electors.

Stornoway

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why some of the now completed permanent houses in Stornoway are not yet available for occupation; and what steps are being taken to end this delay in view of the urgency of local housing needs.

Mr. Buchanan: I am informed that all the houses in Stornoway which have been completed are occupied. There are, however, 26 houses which are complete except for a few essential fittings. I have obtained a note of the materials required and every effort is being made to ensure delivery as speedily as possible.

Mr. MacMillan: Is my hon. Friend aware that these houses cannot be occupied because of the lack of essential fittings for bathrooms, kitchen sinks and so on, which are in ample supply in Ministry of Works stores, and will he take steps to see that this does not happen again?

Mr. Buchanan: This is the first I have heard of that. If my hon. Friend had communicated to me where these articles were lying in store, I would have taken steps to have them taken out of store and put into the houses. I have done my best to find out what materials are available, and I have taken the most urgent steps to see that they are delivered as speedily as possible.

Mr. MacMillan: May I be assured that my hon. Friend does not expect me to supersede in their functions the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Works?

Mr. Buchanan: I do not expect my hon. Friend to supersede the Ministry of Works, but I expect him to inform me if he knows where these articles are, and to that extent help his constituents.

Mr. MacMillan: How can my hon. Friend charge me by implication with having neglected my constituents in this respect when he has been out of touch with the local councils with respect to these questions for six months?

Mr. Buchanan: Far from being out of touch, I went up to Dingwall and met the county council on their own home ground. I made an offer to them which was an improvement on any suggestion which had been made hitherto. Since then I have been in constant touch, continually pressing them for a site. I think that those people who elect the local authority ought to give me a much better one with which to work.

Military Huts

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the huts in military camps are now being included as an addition to the numbers of temporary houses given in the monthly housing returns for Scotland.

Mr. Buchanan: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Veterinary and Medical Officers (Pay)

Mr. Rees-Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War what reason there is for the discrepancy in the rates of pay as between officers in the R.A.V.C. and officers in the R.A.M.C.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): The responsibilities of officers of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps are not of so wide a character as those of medical officers, and the new scales of pay reflect this difference of responsibilities.

Mr. Rees-Williams: As the Secretary of State for War has eliminated the difference between rates of pay in respect of Army trades, why does not he do the same thing in respect of Army professions?

Mr. Bellenger: The answer is not so easy as the supplementary question implies. It is not a matter entirely for the Army.

Sir Waldron Smithers: The closed shop.

Mr. Bellenger: It is a matter for all Service Departments, and there is some civilian guidance on this point. I can assure my hon. Friend that our procedure is in accordance with civilian work.

Mr. York: Would not the War Office give a lead to the Government upon this matter so that in future we may have some steps taken which are very necessary but which are now lacking?

Mr. Bellenger: I do not think it wise to give a lead to anybody, if to do so might create an undesirable precedent.

Sir Ronald Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the veterinary's job is much more difficult than that of the R.A.M.C. as he gets far less help from his patients?

Mr. Bellenger: I, of course, have no practical experience of this matter, and therefore I have to be advised by those who know.

Walking-Out Uniform

Mr. Rees-Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, instead of issuing members of the Army stationed in this country with the proposed blue walking-out uniform, he will issue them with civilian suits which will be more in accord with modern ideas.

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. The proposed post-war dress has been designed for use on duty, as well as for walking out.

Officers (Recording and Posting)

Mr. Rees-Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware

that the organisation for dealing with the recording and posting of officer personnel was found to be inefficient and out-of-date during the last war; and whether he will set up a committee to investigate the many weaknesses and to suggest the necessary improvements.

Mr. Bellenger: A committee in the War Office is already dealing with this matter. It has furnished its first report, which is now under consideration.

Major Cecil Poole: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are quite a few branches of his Department which are long overdue for a good clean out; and is not the time ripe to effect this and introduce some sound business methods into the War Office?

Mr. Bellenger: I think that is going a little beyond the specific point raised in this Question.

Education

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has a further statement to make on his plans for Army education.

Mr. Bellenger: I am not yet able to add anything to the statement regarding our educational plans which was made by my predecessor during the Debate on 27th June. The full implementation of the plans for the future will take some time. They will be developed gradually from the present Army Education Scheme, which is being kept in operation as fully as possible. Under it particular attention is at present being given to the educational needs of the young soldiers who now form so large a proportion of the Army.

Gratuities and Release Pay (Officers)

Mr. Basil Nield: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will ensure that officers who have held a certain rank for a substantial period and are, without fault on their part, reduced in rank shortly before release shall be paid their gratuity and release leave pay on the basis of their higher rank.

Mr. Bellenger: The regulations already provide a suitable safeguard. In such cases, an officer's pay during release leave is assessed on the highest rank held during the 12 months immediately preceding release; his gratuity is assessed on the


highest paid rank held during the war for an aggregate period of six months, assuming this is more favourable than an assessment based on his final substantive or war substantive rank.

Major Poole: Will the Minister now consider implementing the reforms which he has undertaken for so long, of abolishing the acting rank in the Army and its conversion to temporary rank after being held for a period?

Mr. Bellenger: Speaking from memory, something like that is at present under consideration, or being put into practice.

Leave Transport

Mr. Nield: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will secure a supply of motor omnibuses or other similar transport for the use of troops in B.A.O.R. who are stationed some distance from a town in order that they may be conveyed in reasonable comfort to such town for their time off duty.

Mr. Bellenger: Transport for this purpose is already provided, where necessary, to the limit of the resources available. Troop carrying vehicles are extensively used. It would not be possible in present circumstances, to supply and maintain additional motor omnibuses.

Mr. Nield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very considerable hardship is caused to men who have to travel in the back of a three-tonner to their leave places; that they are actually refusing to go on leave for that reason; and can he do something about it?

Mr. Bellenger: I would be very surprised to hear of soldiers refusing to go on leave merely because they had to travel on hard seats. We can only work within the facilities that are available to us.

Mr. Nield: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will receive particulars from me and look into them?

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the train from Austria to Calais which brings troops home on leave or release has only hard seats and no lying-down accommodation for the journey lasting two nights; that the meals provided at long intervals, have to be supplemented

by food of poor quality in a N.A.A.F.I. buffet, for which the troops have to pay, and that these conditions cause dissatisfaction; and if he will arrange for a responsible officer to travel on this train and report.

Mr. Bellenger: I am aware that the degree of comfort on these trains leaves much to be desired, but the great scarcity of good rolling stock in the liberated countries makes it impossible to provide sleeping cars or upholstered seating at present. Great improvements have already been made since the service was inaugurated. Well prepared meals are provided at the beginning and end of the journey and at three intermediate stops, and haversack rations are served for use on the trains. No complaint has previously been received about the food supplied in the N.A.A.F.I. buffet cars, but I am having this point investigated.

Mr. Keeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on a recent occasion the only food obtainable in one N.A.A.F.I. car was cake—and that was made of sand? Does he realise that the poor and not free food, and the hard lying down accommodation of this train, are a very poor advertisement for the Army?

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, I was not aware of what the hon. Gentleman has stated; but he will have observed that I have stated that I am having the N.A.A.F.I. buffet car service investigated.

Flight-Lieut. Crawley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that cattle cars properly equipped are far more comfortable for the troops than third class continental carriages?

Mr. Bellenger: I should hope that they are much more improved than when I first used them 30 years ago

Release Deferment, M.E.F.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give an assurance that deferments of officers in M.E.F. will not be for longer than three months.

Mr. Bellenger: An instruction was issued some time ago to all commands forbidding the deferment of any individual for more than three months without prior War Office sanction. This rule is being observed, and no request has so


far been received from M.E.L.F. for any exception to be made.

Mr. Pickthorn: When the Secretary of State says "for more than three months" does he mean for more than one period of three months, or does he merely mean not more than three months at a time?

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. I mean a total deferment of more than three months

Postwar Credits and Gratuities (Regulars)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for War when he intends to make an announcement on the subject of the payment of postwar credits and gratuities to regular soldiers at present serving.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that considerable time has now passed since the close of hostilities, if he will state when active Servicemen will receive their gratuities, since these payments are required in many cases to resettle the family side of these men's lives.

Mr. Bellenger: Arrangements for payment have now been made. These are explained in more detail in a statement which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As the work of payment will necessarily take some time to complete, I hope the Press will help by giving publicity to this statement.

Following is the statement:

War gratuities of serving members of the Forces will shortly be released for payment. As previously announced, service in the Forces after 15th August, 1946, does not reckon for war gratuity, and arrangements have now been made to assess the war gratuity earned by all members of the Forces up to that date, with a view to early payment

The war gratuity will be paid as at present by means of a credit opened in the individual's name in the Post Office Savings Bank and, as despatch of the bank books will be spread over a period of months, it has been decided that the credit will be opened in each case from a common date, 31st October, 1946, and interest will accrue as from that date The work of assessment and issue will take a considerable time; issues of the Savings Bank books are not expected to begin before

December, 1946, or to be completed be-fore June, 1947; but in cases where the book has not been sent before the date of release or discharge, arrangements will be made for its despatch within 57 days of that date. The work will be carried out under a regular programme as rapidly as possible; special issues out of turn cannot be arranged.

The special Service post-war credits in respect of service in the ranks after 1st January, 1942 (6d. a day for men and 4d. for women), will be paid at the same time and in the same manner as the war gratuities. Detailed official instructions will be circulated by the Service Departments to each Service.

I wish to appeal on behalf of the Government to all members of the Forces who receive this money to delay spending it as long as they possibly can. They will best help their country and themselves by leaving it deposited with the Post Office Savings Bank until they need it for setting themselves up in civil life or for other really necessary expenditure.

Japan

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for War what British troops are now stationed in Japan; what proportion of these are from the Colonies and from the Dominions; and what are the arrangements for leave, both local and home.

Mr. Bellenger: It is not the practice to make public figures of the strength of our Forces in particular overseas theatres. The British troops in Japan are eligible for the same leave as those in other Far East commands.

Mr. Teeling: Arising out of the point about eligibility for the same leave, what is being done about it, because they are not actually getting it? They are getting only one in five men on leave to England at the present moment.

Mr. Bellenger: In relation to leave in the United Kingdom, that proportion which the hon. Member has stated is correct. But if he has any case where the leave is not properly working, and will let me have the particulars, I will look into it.

Soldier's Death, S.E.A.C.

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now make a full statement on the death of a


19 years old soldier in the 4th Battalion Border Regiment, 7th Indian Division, S.E.A.C, who died, on or about VJ-Day, 1046, following the disciplinary action of pack drill without recovering consciousness; and whether pack drill has now been abolished in the Indian Army.

Mr. Bellenger: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a full statement on this case. The court of inquiry proceedings have now been received, but it has been necessary to cable to ALFSEA for certain additional information. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as the investigation is completed. I am informed that there is no such punishment as pack drill in the Indian Army.

Mr. Freeman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now four months since I called attention to this case? Can he give any indication of when we shall have a full report on the matter?

Mr. Bellenger: I cannot give any precise information, but I have asked for this additional information to be sent to me as speedily as possible.

Flogging, Burma

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the allegations at court martial proceedings in June last to the effect that the commanding officer in Burma had authorised the imposition of flogging, and other punishments not sanctioned by Parliament.

Mr. Bellenger: As the House will wish for a full and detailed statement, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Thurtle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the officer charged in this case successfully pleaded condonation by his superior officer, and will he make clear that the will of Parliament must prevail in these matters, and that no officer, however high his rank, is entitled to ignore the Army Act?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. I find no fault with the point of view expressed in that supplementary question. The only thing I can say is that war is a very desperate occasion, and that is the only excuse, if such is needed, that I have to offer for a departure from the literal interpretation of King's Regulations.

Mr. Scollan: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is justifying flogging being introduced by some officers because there is a war on?

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, I am not; but I ask that my hon Friend should read my reply in detail.

Mr. Thurtle: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Parliament has always been very jealous of its right to protect the private soldier?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Berry: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the excuse he has put forward certainly was not accepted by the Allies vis-à-vis the Germans?

Following is the statement:

As the House knows, an officer was recently tried by general court martial for ordering a roan in his unit to be flogged. The accused, at his trial, submitted a plea in bar of trial on the grounds that his action had been condoned by his superiors. Evidence was produced to show that when the late General Wingate formed the Long Penetration Groups he issued detailed instructions relating to the maintenance of discipline during operations. These instructions were drawn up as the general considered that the conditions in which the operations took place were so exceptional that a special code was essential. In particular he laid down that such offences as sleeping whilst a sentry and stealing rations were punishable by flogging. In the recent trial, therefore, the action of the accused officer was held to have been condoned by his superior officers and his plea in bar of trial was allowed.

I have considered with great care what further action should be taken in this matter. By instituting a system of punishment at variance with the Army Act and King's Regulations, General Wingate undoubtedly exceeded his powers. The House knows, of course, that this gallant and distinguished officer met his death in the midst of the operations he was conducting. It remained for me to consider to what extent his successor should properly be brought to account for acquiescing in a system of punishment which was contrary to law.

The conditions in which these Long Penetration Groups operated were without parallel in military history. The


columns were launched on foot through the enemy and operated deep inside the enemy lines. They were maintained entirely by air, their supplies being dropped by parachute. The force commander visited the individual columns by air as opportunity offered and air strips could be made. Otherwise communications were maintained by wireless in a complicated code at specific times of the day.

It follows that each column operated as a separate entity, was cut off from the outside world and other columns by great distances, and lived dangerously for periods extending over many weeks. Although, in many places, the local population was friendly, the fact remained that these columns had to be careful not to trade upon the good nature of the inhabitants owing to the inevitable reprisals which would be bound to follow should the Japanese be aware of any help being given in any particular area. The campaign, therefore, was waged in indescribable discomfort, in which the force was permanently isolated, and in which the slightest mistake or lack of vigilance would jeopardise the safety of the whole column.

It is not unnatural that in these circumstances General Wingate should have considered whether the kind of punishments allowed by law would suit or indeed could be applied in the exceptional conditions in which his force was to operate. Each column commander had the power to convene a field general court-martial which could award such punishments as imprisonment, detention, forfeiture of pay and field punishment. He could himself award the punishments of detention, forfeiture of pay and field punishment summarily, subject to the soldier being given the power of election of trial by court-martial. But in so far as these punishments could be applied at all they would have been less exacting than the hardships suffered daily by all members of the columns. The system of summary punishment which was devised was known throughout the force, was generally accepted by the men under command and was inflicted only with the consent of the culprit.

The House should appreciate that General Wingate's successor was in India when he was called upon to take over command on the general's death When

he arrived the campaign was in full swing. I think it will be agreed that, although he inherited and became responsible for the orders of his predecessor, he could not reasonably be expected to turn his eyes from his main task which was to harass the Japanese within their lines. Communications were such that in any event it would have been impracticable for detailed orders on discipline to be issued if the campaign was to proceed.
I have therefore concluded that no useful purpose will be served in pursuing the question of the responsibility of individuals for what took place.

Training Areas

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to announce the Government's decision on the size and location of United Kingdom military training areas.

Mr. Bellenger: Not yet, Sir. As previously explained to hon. Members, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning has set up an inter-Departmental committee to consider the Services' requirements and proposals as a whole, with a view to recommending which areas shall be made available, having full regard to civil as well as Service interests. The committee are giving urgent consideration to the training areas, and decisions will be reached as soon as their recommendations are available.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that consideration has been given to this matter now for something approaching twelve months, and does he realise that the opinion is growing in these country areas that the pledges given at the beginning of the war to these people, that they would not be dispossessed of their homes, have been broken by the Government? Will he consider making a full statement to the House, if only of an interim character, on the whole position?

Mr. Bellenger: I understand the interest of the House in this matter, and will endeavour to make a statement as soon as possible.

Brigadier Peto: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that such common lands as are at present under requisition under the Defence Act will be


derequisitioned at the earliest possible time, and not be used as training areas in future?

Mr. Bellenger: I am not aware that they are being used as training areas, but the only assurance I can give is that the whole matter is now being very carefully investigated.

Mr. Vane: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that, as far as possible, there will not be training areas in areas where we hope there will soon be national parks?

Mr. Medland: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an undertaking that there will be no further encroachment on the Forest of Dartmoor which is to be made a national park?

Discharge Purchase

Dr. Comyns: asked the Secretary of State for War when he intends to reintroduce the pre-war custom of allowing a Regular soldier to purchase his discharge, should he wish to break his term of service.

Mr. Bellenger: I regret that in view of the present requirements of the Army it is not possible without detriment to reintroduce yet the pre-war system under which men were permitted to purchase their discharge.

Dr. Comyns: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to examine individual cases where real hardship has been shown to have arisen?

Mr. Bellenger: Not on the basis of enabling a man to get his discharge by providing money.

Marriage Allowances (Young Soldiers)

Mr. George Wallace: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is prepared to consider an adjustment of the new pay code whereby marriage allowances may be granted to men called up to the Services who are below the age of 21 and are married.

Mr. Frederick Lee: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that marriage allowances are not being paid to wives whose husbands are being called to the Forces while they are less than 21 years of age; and if he will take immediate steps to rectify this position.

Dr. Comyns: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the hardship which is occasioned, he will amend the regulation which denies a marriage allowance to the wife of a soldier under 21 years of age.

Mr. Cecil Manning: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that hardship is suffered by wives of married soldiers under 21 years of age who, under the new Code, are not eligible to receive marriage allowances; that cases have arisen of recourse to public assistance and if he will restore the 1939 position by amending the Code.

Mr. Bellenger: My hon. Friends are presumably referring to men called up under war-time arrangements and not to Regular soldiers who enlist voluntarily. Men called up for service, if they are married and under 21 years of age, are eligible to apply for war service grants. Application should be made in the first instance to the commanding officer.

Mr. Wallace: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in many cases I have written in to the War Office and the reply I have been given today is exactly the same as I had before? Is he further aware that this is a ridiculous situation? Cupid does not wait for K.Rs. and A.C.Is., and I think he had better adopt the slogan. "Fit for fighting, fit for marriage."

Mr. Lee: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the grants referred to are made from the Ministry of Pensions and not from the War Office, and that in the interim of many weeks dependants are compelled to get local assistance boards to give them public assistance?

Mr. Bellenger: In answer to the first part of that question, that is the normal procedure, because the Ministry of Pensions administers war service grants. As to the latter part of the question, that is certainly not my desire, and I will do all I can to see that as soon as they join up they have facilities for getting these grants.

Major Bramall: Will my right hon. Friend please say what is meant in the White Paper on the subject of Service pay and allowances by "special arrangements being made for soldiers under 21"?

Mr. Bellenger: I think that was in reference to the point I have just made.

Captain Chetwynd: Would it not be simpler and more desirable to make a direct payment to these people, rather than have a war service grant on a means test?

Mr. Bellenger: It would be simpler, but there are various administrative difficulties in the way, and the effect of this procedure is that these men do not in the main lose any pay.

Trials, B.A.O.R. (Delays)

Mr. Grimston: asked the Secretary of State for War if any steps are taken in B.A.O.R. to obviate delays in trials, particularly in cases where officers or men otherwise due for release leave are involved.

Mr. Bellnger: Yes, Sir. Instructions were recently issued to all commands stressing the need to avoid such delays which were contributed to in the case of B.A.O.R. by the lack of adequate defence facilities. This is being remedied.

Release Pay

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for War the rates of pay issued to private soldiers, paid local corporals and paid corporals on demobilisation; what proportion of these rates is considered as ration allowance; and if he is satisfied that the amounts so paid are adequate to cover demobilised men's needs until such time as postal drafts arrive three to four weeks later.

Mr. Bellenger: The advances are £10 in the case of corporals and £9 in the case of privates, representing about 21 days' pay and ration allowance. The ration allowance portion of this amount is £3 6s. 6d. Postal drafts to cover the remaining period of leave are issued within 21 days of release. The advance is roughly equivalent to the soldier's entitlement for the period up to the issue of the postal drafts, and I am satisfied that there is no ground for modifying the arrangements. A standard rate of advance is necessary to ensure the rapid despatch of the men through the dispersal centre.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the postal drafts arrive on time, because in many cases men are complaining that they are late?

Mr. Bellenger: In the main, yes, Sir.

Courts of Inquiry Reports (Publication)

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make available to hon. Members the proceedings of the two courts of inquiry which preceded the recent courts-martial of men of the 13th Parachute Battalion.

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. It is not the practice, and would be contrary to the public interest to disclose the proceedings of courts of inquiry, which are privileged documents.

Mr. Greenwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present Government were elected because the people of this country wanted a Government which was not bound by precedents? Is he further aware that there is grave public disquiet about the conditions under which men in the Far East are living, which will not be alleviated by any apparent reluctance to make the facts known to the public?

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. The facts have been made known to the public, judging at any rate by the volume of Press interviews given in one particular case. The hon. Member must leave a certain amount to be dealt with by Ministers.

Major Poole: Can the right hon. Gentleman now state what were the irregularities at the trial?

Mr. Bellenger: There is another Question on the Order Paper on that subject.

Mr. Yates: Do I understand from the reply that we are not to have a report of the dreadful and appalling conditions which obtained there, because that is the question which is worrying the people of this country? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that we can have some official report.

Mr. Bellenger: I have already given the House some information on that matter. The main thing the House and the country want is that these conditions, where they exist, shall be altered, and altered quickly.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least issue a White Paper indicating what were the irregularities?

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. I am giving an answer to that question later on.

Shaving Cream

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will arrange for a supply of brushless shaving cream to be made available, through N.A.A.F.I. canteens, to British troops serving on the Continent.

Mr. Bellenger: That is already done, and I understand that no complaints of any shortages have been received.

Cigarettes

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for War what alteration has been made in the free ration of cigarettes and the supply of duty-free cigarettes from N.A.A.F.I. for B.A.O.R troops; and what is the purpose of the changes.

Mr. Bellenger: There has been no change in the free ration. The supply of cigarettes through N.A.A.F.I. has been increased temporarily because of the favourable stock position.

Mr. Hurd: Are any immediate changes contemplated, because there seem to be many rumours going about?

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. The supply of cigarettes has been temporarily increased, as I have said.

Surplus Ammunition (Distribution)

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the Secretary of State for War how many tons of redundant ammunition have been destroyed or disposed of each month since January, 1946.

Mr. Bellenger: I will circulate the detailed figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The total for the nine months ended 30th September was about 279,000 tons.

Mr. Shephard: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much still remains to be destroyed?

Mr. Bellenger: Not without notice.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does the information include the areas where ammunition has been removed or destroyed?

Mr. Bellenger: The statement I am circulating gives the figures only for months. It would entail a good deal of extra work at the War Office to give the figures asked for. Unless the hon. and gallant Member

particularly wants them, I would rather he left the answer as I have given it.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: As my constituency and that of the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) have hundreds of thousands of tons of this ammunition we are particularly interested.

Mr. Bellenger: I will see what I can do to help.

Mr. Stephen: Will the Minister arrange that some of the ammunition is shifted to some of the beauty spots in England for a change?

Following are the figures:


1946:



Approximate tonnage.


January
…
…
…
24,000


February
…
…
…
25,000


March
…
…
…
38,000


April
…
…
…
38,000


May
…
…
…
43,000


June
…
…
…
39,000


July
…
…
…
32,000


August
…
…
…
21,000


September
…
…
…
19,000

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether priority will be given in the repatriation scheme for German prisoners of war in this country to those whose families resided in the Sudetenland and who have now been expelled to Western Germany, so that the expelled women and children may have the help of their breadwinners before the winter.

Mr. Bellenger: The repatriation scheme allows for a monthly quota of 500 compassionate cases who will be selected by the Control Commission authorities in Germany. The persons to whom my hon. Friend refers should, therefore, apply to the local Military Government official for registration as compassionate cases.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask my right hon. Friend what steps he is taking to make this known to the persons concerned; whether he is aware that literally tens of thousands of people have been turned out of their homeland under the iniquities of Potsdam without anybody looking after them; and that they are now milling about in the British zone without their breadwinners? Cannot he do something about it?

Mr. Bellenger: I am prepared to help in whatever way I can. I should think this would be a matter primarily for my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. Stokes: I will try him then.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Is the Minister aware that the Government of Czechoslovakia itself takes every precaution to prevent families being separated in this way; and that even communities are kept together, and S.S. men have their sentences remitted in order to be allowed to join their families?

Mr. Stokes: Further to that supplementary question, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that until very recently quite the contrary was the case; that men are being kept back and employed in slave camps under slave conditions?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Pyjamas and Handkerchiefs

Mr. Basil Nield: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will now sanction an ordnance issue of pyjamas and handkerchiefs to other ranks serving in B.A.O.R.

Mr. Bellenger: The question of issuing pyjamas and handkerchiefs to men of the three Services is at present being considered by the Service Departments and Board of Trade. I am unable to deal with B.A.O.R. as a special case in advance of the general decision.

Mr. Nield: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there is not such an issue in the Far East; and does he hold out any hope for the Rhine Army?

Mr. Bellenger: Only as part of the general conclusions which are arrived at.

Combined Services Entertainment

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements are being made for the entertainment of British troops to take the place of E.N.S.A. in India, the East Indies, Ceylon, Burma and Japan; and whether, in view of the distance from home and the small amount of military work to be done, he will insist that good professional talent is sent out to them from home and that their entertainment is not left in the hands, of local talent collected amongst the troops themselves.

Mr. Bellenger: The Combined Services Entertainment Organization has been set up by the Army and R.A.F. to provide some "live" entertainment in place of that provided by E.N.S.A. Some 70 professional artistes have already been sent to A.L.F.S.E.A., who are responsible for the East Indies, Ceylon and Burma, but it will be understood that time and cost will limit numbers to be sent from the United Kingdom. British troops in India and Japan are administered by the Government of India and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Australia respectively. I understand that both these authorities are including "live" entertainment amongst the amenities which they are providing.

Mr. Bossom: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by ", live" entertainment? Were not the people who went round with E.N.S.A. alive?

Courts Martial Appeals (Committee of Inquiry)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) if he will take immediate steps to confer by Statute a right of appeal, in the ordinary sense of that term, to a higher court from the decision of a court martial of first instance and from the award and order of a military and naval officer involving punishment;
(2) if he, in conjunction with other appropriate authorities, will take steps to inquire into the advisability of amending the Army Act, the Acts relating to the reserve and auxiliary forces and other relevant law, so as to make them more consonant with the needs and conditions of the present time.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the question of setting up military appeal courts on similar lines to the Court of Criminal Appeal, to which soldiers sentenced at a court martial may, if they desire, make an appeal against their sentences.

Mr. Janner: asked the secretary of State for War whether, in view of the position disclosed by the imposition of heavy sentences upon soldiers who were wrongly convicted, he will immediately promote legislation enabling every person serving in His Majesty's forces who is convicted of an offence by a service tribunal to appeal against the conviction


and/or penalty imposed to a court constituted of at least one civilian judge; and to provide that pending the hearing of the appeal the accused shall be entitled to apply to the High Court to be treed from detention if he is detained.

Dr. Santo Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the Armed Forces have altered much in character since 1881, he will consider altering the regulations covering the penal code in the Army, as set out in the Army Act of 1881 and its subsequent amendments, and in the notes thereto in the Manual of Military Law, in order to prevent a repetition of the recent paratrooper incident.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will institute a review of the whole system of trial by courts martial; and an inquiry into the organisation, methods and efficiency in the Judge Advocate-General's Department.

Mr. Bellenger: The suggestion that under the military code there should be a right of appeal to a court of appeal in the ordinarily understood sense of that term is not new. Two important committees, whose reports were laid before this House, have already considered the question. The first was the Committee presided over by the late Mr. Justice Darling, which sat in 1919, and deliberated in the light of the experience of the Great War (Cmd. 428). The second was the Committee presided over by Mr. Roland Oliver, K.C. (now Mr. Justice Oliver) which reported in 1938 (Cmd. 6200). Both these committees reported against setting up service appeal courts, and gave weighty reasons for their views, which are fully set out in their reports. I will not attempt to recapitulate those reasons here, but would point out that the Darling Committee considered that the existing system of automatic review of court-martial proceedings by the Judge Advocate-General, and further review on petition, furnishes a soldier convicted by court-martial with fuller safeguards against error at the trial than are available to a civilian convicted in a civil court.
However, as my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for War indicated in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Lang) on 4th December

last, it was always contemplated that an investigation should be undertaken in the light of recent war experience, and he suggested that it would be desirable to appoint a committee for this purpose a little later on, when the Judge Advocate-General and other staffs intimately concerned were less heavily pressed with current business. I agree with that view, and after consulting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, I now propose that a committee of similar standing to the Darling and Oliver Committees should be set up forthwith for this purpose. The exact composition and terms of reference of the committee will need consideration and I will make an announcement as soon as I can.
Questions relating to the administration of justice under naval law would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty.

Mr. Hector Hughes: In setting up that committee, will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that the Acts referred to in Question 36 were passed at a time when the Army consisted of volunteer soldiers, and are quite unsuitable for the Army of today, which consists very largely of conscripted soldiers who cannot be said to have accepted the conditions laid down by those Acts?

Mr. Bellenger: I think that question is one which the committee would more properly consider.

Mr. Janner: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer that portion of the Question set down by myself relating to the right of a soldier who has appealed against a conviction to apply to the court to enable him to be freed from detention, if he is detained, and will that be considered by the committee at the same time?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, I should think that that would be one of the matters to come under review by the committee.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the terms of reference of this committee will be sufficiently wide to enable them to consider the question of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal in the case of indictable offences, to take into account the question of men being kept under arrest for long periods before and after their court martial, and also the


question of whether some other form of trial than a court martial might not be more speedy and effective?

Mr. Bellenger: While not giving any specific undertaking, I would desire to make the terms of reference as wide as possible.

Mr. Walkden: In setting up this committee, will the right hon. Gentleman give heed to the urgent need to include men of the lower ranks, who may have had difficulty with or perhaps been victims of a court martial, and who have had difficulties in having their cases re-examined? There are men of ability who could probably serve very well, as compared with major-generals.

Mr. Bellenger: Naturally I should desire to get the best possible committee of inquiry that I could.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: In the course of the right hon. Gentleman's answer he has referred to two committees set up to consider appeals from courts martial. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both these committees made many recommendations that would have been most helpful both to courts martial and to prisoners, and that not one of these recommendations has been carried out by the War Office? When any committee is set up in the future will he see that such recommendations as it may put forward receive the attention of the War Office?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. I think I can give the assurance asked for by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the latter part of his question. We had better let the committee investigate and report, and then this House will be able to take suitable steps to see that I implement the document.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

British Families (Accommodation)

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied with the arrangements made for the accommodation of soldier's families going to Germany.

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. If the Question refers to accommodation in Germany, no soldier's family is sent to Germany until a certificate is received from B.A.O.R. that suitable accommodation is

available. As regards the type of accommodation, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on 9th October by my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). I am sending him a copy of that reply.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely satisfied that this accommodation actually does exist, because there is a very widespread feeling that that is not the case, and that families going there do not know what the conditions are?

Mr. Bellenger: I have given personal consideration to these matters, and have visited B.A.O.R. to see for myself the conditions awaiting families before the scheme was put into force.

Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the main question last week was not so much concerned with that aspect of the position as with the finding of the accommodation, and with the position of the German families who would have to be moved in order to find accommodation? I think that the feeling of the House was somewhat more concerned with alternative accommodation for them not being available. It is on that subject that we want to be assured.

Mr. Bellenger: I think that my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave a fairly complete answer to those points last week.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I beg to give notice that I will endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Cost of Living

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the estimated cost of living in Germany for soldiers' families in relation to that existing in home stations.

Mr. Bellenger: I have no information to suggest that there is any marked disparity in the cost of living for soldiers' families in Germany as compared with home stations.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman go into this question very carefully, because soldiers' families are going lightheartedly to Germany as


though it were a paradise, and I am afraid there may be a good deal coming to them which they do not expect?

Mr. Bellenger: I do not know what reason the hon. and gallant Gentleman has for saying that. We have set up an information bureau in London to help the families that are going overseas, and I have not had information on that score.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: What is the use of a bureau in London for families going from Scotland?

Brigadier Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a look at the N.A.A.F.I. prices and compare the prices existing in Austria and Germany with prices at home?

Mr. Bellenger: I have already done so.

Resident British Minister

Mr. Boothby: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now appoint a resident British Minister in Germany with Cabinet rank.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No. Sir.

Mr. Boothby: Will not the Prime Minister agree that the administration of the British zone is one of the most important and difficult tasks which has ever confronted this country? If it was found necessary during the war to appoint a resident Minister in Cairo, surely it is ten times more important and necessary to appoint a resident Minister in Germany to take day-to-day decisions on the spot?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think that the conditions are entirely different. I think that there was a case for the appointment of resident Ministers in war conditions for certain overseas posts. As a rule, I think that Ministers should be in this country and should be present to answer to Parliament for their administration. I do not believe in this entire detachment of Ministers.

Mr. Scollan: Will the Prime Minister consider the implications of this Question and apply it to Scotland?

Mr. Stokes: Without wishing to press the Prime Minister unduly, may I ask if he really considers that the atmosphere of Norfolk House is suitable in which to judge day-to-day decisions in Germany?

Is he aware that a considerable number of responsible people, conducting administration in Germany, are of the opinion that their problems would be greatly eased it they had a resident Minister in the country?

The Prime Minister: That seems to be repeating the same point.

Mr. Boothby: I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again on the Adjournment.

Mr. Edelman: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Notice having been given, no further supplementary questions can be asked.

Electrical Poles (Export)

Mr. Spence: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the first deliveries of poles for electrical transmission lines are expected from Germany, and what the estimated monthly output will be.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): The first shipment of wooden poles suitable for carrying telegraph or electrical transmission lines was made on 23rd September. It is estimated that shipments during October will amount to 2,000 poles, and that the rate of delivery will rise to 8,000 per month by April, 1947

Oral Answers to Questions — POLISH ARMED FORCES (DISTRIBUTION)

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Polish soldiers of all ranks are now stationed in Scotland and England and Wales, respectively; and what further numbers may be expected

Mr. Bellenger: At present there are about 36,000 Polish troops in Scotland, 64,000 in England and 8,000 in Wales; 52,000 more are due to arrive in the United Kingdom and will be accommodated in England and Wales.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: While, naturally, we wish to help these men as much as we possibly can, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the proportion, on the basis of the population strength, between England and Wales and Scotland will be a fair one?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. I understand the point fully, and we are endeavouring to meet it.

Mr. M. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that about 16,000 of these troops who are stationed in Scotland are acknowledged by the War Office, in reply to a letter by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Gandar Dower), to have been members of the German Forces during the war, and to have fought against us, while others were members of the Todt Organisation? Will he see that something is done to make sure that men of that type are not stationed in Scotland?

Mr. Bellenger: I am not fully apprised of the point made by my hon. Friend, but I will see we spread these troops as fairly as possible.

Mr. Oliver Poole: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the maximum notice possible to the local authorities in the particular areas to which these men are sent before sending them, so that arrangements can be made for their reception?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROCKET TESTS (AUSTRALIA)

Mr. Dumpleton: asked the Prime Minister whether instructions will be given to the British Military Mission in Australia, in regard to proposed rocket-firing tests, that such tests must not in any way interfere with the Central Aboriginal Reserve and its inhabitants.

The Prime Minister: Any decision in this matter would be one for the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. I understand that the Australian Minister for the Interior has stated that he will personally watch the interests of the aborigines in relation to this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST (GENERAL HEADQUARTERS)

Sir Peter Macdonald: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the removal of British military headquarters from Cairo, he will state whether active consideration is now being given to the desirability of establishing such headquarters in Kenya.

The Prime Minister: The question of the location of General Headquarters, Middle East, after its withdrawal from Cairo is under examination at the present time. Kenya is among the possible locations which are being considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (ANGLO-AMERICAN CORRESPONDENCE)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to publish the correspondence between himself and President Truman on the situation in Palestine.

The Prime Minister: I have no such intention.

Mr. Gammans: Does not the Prime Minister realise that the question of Palestine is doing more than anything else to poison Anglo-American relations at the present time? Does he not consider that the House is entitled to know what representations have been made by him to the American Government on this subject?

The Prime Minister: I am not prepared to accept either of the statements of the hon. Member. It is clearly a question for consideration whether or not correspondence between myself and the President of the United States should be published. As far as I am aware, there is no precedent for it.

Major Poole: Does not the Prime Minister agree that if there is any poison in this matter, it is certainly not being spread in this House?

Oral Answers to Questions — DENTAL INVESTIGATION (CHILDREN)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Lord President of the Council if his attention has been called to experiments on 45 children performed by Dr. J. D. King, of the Medical Research Council, over periods of six months and two years, such experiments being calculated in the opinion of medical authorities at the time seriously to injure the teeth of the children; why children from an orphanage were chosen; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The investigation to


which my hon. Friend refers involved giving a small extra ration of sweets to a number of children whose dental condition was under observation. The children were kept under constant supervision throughout to ensure that they suffered no ill effects from the experiment, which would have been stopped at once if there seemed to be any danger of this. In fact, as had been expected, there were no ill effects, and I gather that the children thoroughly enjoyed the experiment. It was necessary to study children in institutions owing to the need for an adequate number of subjects living under identical conditions on a known diet.

Mr. Freeman: Is it fair for orphan children to be experimented upon in this way?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is really in danger of losing all the electoral support of the other children in his constituency.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (STAFF)

Major Vernon: asked the Lord President of the Council the numbers of staff employed by the Medical Research Council, and the salaries paid in the categories, administrative, scientific, permanent staff paid weekly and temporary staff paid weekly.

Mr. H. Morrison: As the answer contains a number of figures, I propose, with permission, to circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:


STAFF EMPLOYED BY MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL.



Numbers.
Salaries.




£


Administrative Officers
10
590–2,750


Scientific staff, including qualified assistants. 
204
300–2,500


Other staff paid monthly
171
250–750


Established staff paid weekly. 
63
Under 250


Temporary staff paid weekly (mainly under age 21). 
96
Under 250

In addition, there are 15 scientific officers and eight temporary staff paid weekly employed on a part-time basis, with salaries pro rata within the ranges given above.

Major Vernon: asked the Lord President of the Council if the start employed by the Medical Research Council are free to join trade unions and participate union activities, as are civil servants.

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE MARRIAGE BAR (ABOLITION)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. JOHN EDWARDS.: —To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any decision has yet been reached on the abolition of the marriage bar in the Civil Service.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): Might I, Mr Speaker, with the leave of the House, be allowed to give a reply to a Question which I know is of considerable public interest and which was not reached, namely. Question No. 75?
The answer is: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government have decided that the marriage bar in the Home Civil Service shall henceforth be abolished. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement on certain points of detail arising out of this decision.

Sir W. Smithers: On a point of Order. Who is the judge of the importance of a Question, Mr. Speaker? I have two Questions on the Order Paper which have not been reached and which, in my opinion, are much more important than the one which has just been answered by the Chancellor.

Mr. Speaker: We all think that our own Questions are the most important, but the judge in this respect is the Minister concerned, with my permission.

Sir W. Smithers: With great respect, Sir, why should one Question be answered to the detriment of a hundred others?

Mr. Speaker: It has been the custom of this House for I do not know how many years. It is one of our rules.

Mr. Gammans: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this is restricted to the Home Civil Service and why it is not extended to the Colonial Civil Service as well?

Mr. Dalton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read the statement I am circulating. I think that any question such as that which he has in mind could be more conveniently addressed to the Minister directly concerned.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Will the circulated answer cover the incidental effect of this decision—upon which I think the Government are to be congratulated—upon the marriage bar and superannuation arrangements in the public service?

Mr. Dalton: Superannuation is a large issue, and I think the hon. Gentleman had better put a separate Question on that point.

Mr. Walkden: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the decision will include State servants or active school teachers employed by local authorities?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, local authorities are not covered.

Mr. Walkden: But they are State servants, all the same.

Following is the statement:

In future married women will not be ineligible by reason of their marriage for appointment to established posts in the Home Civil Service, and women who already hold such posts will not be required to resign on marriage. Married women who remain in the Service will be required to comply with the normal conditions and practices of their employment, including regular attendance, the working of overtime when necessary and the acceptance of liability to transfer both within the United Kingdom and outside it. Those who, on account of domestic responsibilities or otherwise are unable to comply with these conditions will not be retained in the Service.

The abolition of the marriage bar will take effect today. It will not give any right of reinstatement to women who have in the past been required to resign from the Civil Service on marriage. Marriage gratuities will be paid, as hitherto, to women who voluntarily resign from established Civil Service posts on marriage. The Government have decided to accept the recommendation of the National Whitley Council Marriage Bar Committee (Cmd. 6886) for improved maternity leave terms.

In order that married women shall not now be debarred from competing in the main open reconstruction competitions of the Home Civil Service, the Civil Service Commissioners have decided to extend until 1st January, 1947, the last date for applying in certain competitions for which the closing date was fixed at 1st September, 1946. They will publish forthwith a complete list of the competitions affected.

This statement refers to established posts in the Home Civil Service. The marriage bar will be retained in the Foreign Service. There are a few posts in the Home Service, closely analogous to posts in the Foreign Service, the holding of which involves residence overseas on representational duties. In this very limited field the possibility of retention on marriage will have to be examined on merits in relation to the facts of each individual case.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUTINY CHARGES, MALAYA (IRREGULARITIES)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. MANNINGHAM-BULLER.: —To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will now state what were the irregularities which invalidated the trial of 243 soldiers in Malaya, or publish a White Paper setting them out.

Mr. WYATT.: —To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will give full particulars of the irregularities which invalidated the proceedings of the court-martial of personnel of the 13th Parachute Battalion.

Mr. Eden: A little earlier, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for War referred, on more than one occasion, to the reply he was going to make to Question No. 87, in which there is general interest in all parts of the House. Unhappily, Sir, the Question has not been reached, and if the Minister is willing to give the answer now could that be arranged for the convenience of the House?

Mr. Bellenger: I am perfectly willing to give the answer to Question No. 87, which I will answer with Question No. 97.
There is nothing irregular in the holding of a joint trial as such, in the


case of mutiny or any other offence the essence of which is combination between the accused. In a case of mutiny it would generally be convenient for a joint trial to be held, but where the number of accused is very large and where several incidents are involved it must be ensured that injustice does not result from such mass trial. Great care has necessarily to be taken that the trial is so conducted as properly to safeguard the interests of individual accused both as to the manner in which evidence is given and as to the guidance afforded to the court on the extent to which the evidence of one accused may be taken to incriminate or exculpate co-accused.
It was in the following respects that serious irregularities occurred in the course of the trial in Malaya:
In the first place, evidence in the majority of cases was allowed to be taken from spokesmen of groups, a method not in accordance with the Rules of Evidence
Secondly, the Judge Advocate acting at the trial misdirected the court in law as to the bearing of the evidence in its application to each individual case.
Thirdly, he failed to deal with the case of each accused individually on its own facts.
In short, the evidence was neither elicited nor applied in such a way as to establish either the guilt of those who were really guilty or the innocence of all those who were really innocent. There was thus no assurance that justice had been done, and in view of the legal opinion I had received that the convictions ought not to be allowed to stand, I felt it my duty to quash the proceedings.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him how many defending officers were employed to defend these 243 men, and whether it was not realised at the outset that any Judge Advocate would have difficulties in dealing with a case in which there were 243 accused? Further, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Judge Advocate-General's Department in London were consulted before this record number of men were put on trial?

Mr. Bellenger: The answer to the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question is: One defending officer. The answer to the second part is that I have dealt with the Deputy Judge Advocate-

General's Department put there realising the necessity for adequate defence—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: No, my second point was whether, in view of the number of men involved, the Judge Advocate-General's Department in London was fully consulted before the men were put on trial?

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, I do not think so. The Deputy Judge Advocate-General in India was a very experienced officer in matters of this nature, and it was thought that he was fully able to deal with the situation.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that the Department was not consulted before the trial?

Mr. Bellenger: I should not like to give a specific answer to that question without notice.

Mr. Pickthorn: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, in view of what he said, which must reflect on the Deputy Judge Advocate-General concerned, ought there not, in the interests of justice to him, apart from other considerations, to be an opportunity of judging how serious the irregularities were? Second, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us at what date in his office it was (a) suspected, and (b) known, that there were irregularities so serious as perhaps to involve invalidity?

Mr. Bellenger: If I may answer the last point first, I think it was when the proceedings of the court martial were received in this country. With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I have called for a full report on this case.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can we have an assurance that when a full report of the case is received there will be an opportunity for us to see what the irregularities were?

Mr. Bellenger: I think I have indicated clearly today what the irregularities were. I am satisfied that the decision I took was the only one I could have taken.

Mr. Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that instructions will be given that no further mass trials should take place without reference to London first?

Mr. Bellenger: I sincerely hope that there will not be any other occasion for a mass trial.

Mr. Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend answer my question?

Mr. Bellenger: It is purely a hypothetical question. I should prefer to answer the question as it arises, but I hope it will not arise.

Mr. Speaker: May I point out to the House that both Question No. 87 and Question No. 97 merely ask what were the irregularities? They do not deal with the conduct of the court martial.

Major Legge-Bourke: Further to the reply given to—

Mr. Austin: On a point of Order. If I am not mistaken, Sir, you called my name a moment or two ago.

Mr. Speaker: And I have just called the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke).

Major Legge-Bourke: Further to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), may I ask the Secretary of State for War why he says that the irregularities were discovered for the first time only on the arrival of the court-martial proceedings in this country when, in the first statement he made to the House on this matter, he said that the proceedings had already arrived, and were being examined?

Mr. Bellenger: I made a statement then that they had arrived and were being examined.

Mr. Austin: In the light of the facts which have been revealed, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether we can take it that as a consequence the Deputy Judge Advocate-General in question will no longer be allowed to preside at further courts-martial?

Mr. Bellenger: I prefer first to get a full report.

Major Poole: In view of the concern which may be felt at the fact that there was only one defending officer for all these men, will my right hon. Friend confirm that this was at the request of the men themselves?

Mr. Bellenger: I was not aware of that, but I must say that I think the defence facilities were inadequate. As a matter of interest, the House ought to know that as soon as I came to the War Office, as Financial Secretary, I started inquiries into the whole question of legal aid in suitable cases. Investigations are now

proceeding which, I hope, will bear considerable fruit shortly.

Mr. Pickthorn: This is a matter of great importance. Will the Secretary of State now agree that the last supplementary question asked from below the Gangway put beyond all dispute the necessity of making exactly plain what errors this Deputy Judge Advocate-General made?

Mr. Bellenger: I think that it is only necessary to explain, as I have done, what the irregularities were which caused these proceedings to be invalidated. I hope that the House will accept that explanation.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend say what was the age and what were the experience and qualifications of the particular Deputy Judge Advocate who dealt with the Malaya case; and will he also state what action, in general, is taken to see that duly qualified, experienced, and competent persons are chosen for the very responsible duty of Deputy Judge Advocate?

Mr. Bellenger: If my hon. and learned Friend wants that information, I think that he had better put a Question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUREMBERG EXECUTIONS (PHOTOGRAPHS)

Mr. Eden: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the report that the hanging of those condemned at Nuremberg is to be filmed and whether His Majesty's Government is taking every action which may be in its power to prevent the public exhibition of any such films or photographs.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to this report. It is inaccurate. The Allied Control Council, on which His Majesty's Government are represented, decided last week that no cinematograph film or photograph should be taken of the execution. Photographs of the bodies will be taken after death by an official photographer accompanied by a representative of each of the four Powers, for record purposes. This will be the only photograph allowed There has been no decision of the Control Council on the question of publication of these photographs. For my own part I should be strongly opposed to their publication.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED

ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING LICENCES) BILL

"to revoke certain emergency provisions as to licences to drive motor vehicles, and make provision with respect to the grant of such licences to persons who have held such licences under the emergency provision; and to amend the law as to the destination of fees in respect of driving tests," presented by Mr. Barnes; supported by Mr. Westwood, Mr. Glenvil Hall and Mr. George Strauss; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

ROOSEVELT MEMORIAL BILL

Resolution of the House [11th October] relative to the Roosevelt Memorial Bill, and Lords Message [14th October] signifying their concurrence in the said Resolution, read;

Bill committed to a Select Committee of six Members to be joined with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords: Mr. Eden, Mr. Hicks, Mr. McAllister, Mr. Montague, Mr. Hopkin Morris and Mr. Lyttelton nominated Members of the Committee.

All Petitions against the Bill presented at any time not later than Seven days after the making of this Order to be referred to the Committee.

Petitions against the Bill may be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, provided that such Petitions shall have been prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of this House relating to Petitions against Private Bills.

Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel, or agents, to be heard against the Bill, and counsel or agents heard in support of the Bill.

Power to report from day to day the Minutes of the evidence.

Three to be the quorum.—[The Prime Minister.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such of the said Orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships, and to request them to appoint an equal number of Lords to join with the Committee appointed by this House.

Orders of the Day — COINAGE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.45 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a simple Bill, and one which, I hope, is not controversial. Its purposes are obvious, and, as I hope I shall be able to explain, no grave questions of principle are raised by it. The Bill authorises that in place of the present so-called silver coins—and I will explain later why I say "so-called"—we should, in future, mint and issue coins of the same denomination but made of cupronickel, that is to say of 75 per cent. copper and 25 per cent. nickel, in place of the present alloy of which the so-called silver coins consist, of 50 per cent. silver, 40 per cent. copper, 5 per cent. nickel and 5 per cent. zinc.
There are two reasons for making this proposal now. In the first place, silver has become more expensive than it was before the war, and, in the view of the Government, it has now become too expensive to be used any longer as a means of currency. The price of silver in 1939 was something below 2s. an ounce, and the price now is more than 4s. 7d. It is 4/7½d. an ounce at the controlled London price, but the supplies are limited, and it is quite possible that the price may rise further, but I base my argument on the figure of 4/7½d. The rise in price is due partly to an increase in the demand for silver during the war, and partly to the permanent increase in the peace-time use of this metal, particularly in photographic and electrical procedures in industry. That is one reason why the price has risen. Another reason is the increased hoarding of silver which is taking place in many parts of the world. In the second place, we have an obligation to repay to the United States a quantity of silver lent by them to us under Lend-Lease during the war. Some 88 million ounces of silver were thus obtained, and this has to be repaid over the next five years, under an agreement entered into some time ago. The Government of India has a similar obligation to make repayment for an even larger amount to the


United States. We and India cannot possibly buy this silver in the market. It is too ruinously expensive. We must, therefore, economise our existing use of silver, where economy will do least harm—where, I believe, it will do no harm—that is to say, in coinage, rather than to economise in its industrial use, which would be unfortunate.
The effect of this Bill would be that we should be able to recover about 20 million ounces of fine silver a year for some years to come, through the gradual withdrawal of coins from circulation. It would be a gradual process, spread over a term of years, and it would be our intention to withdraw at, roughly, the rate of 20 million ounces a year. The total saving which would result by replacing the whole of the existing silver coinage by the cupro-nickel coins which we propose to substitute, when the whole operation has been completed, would be in the order of £50 million sterling, and this would be gradually reflected in the Vote of the Royal Mint during the period. The saving of £50 million would be the gross saving, and from this would have to be deducted the amount due to be repaid to the United States under the Lend-Lease agreement, but even after such deduction, there would still be a saving of some £30 million over the period to the public finances. So much for the general reasons for the Bill.
It may interest the House if I very briefly mention one or two facts of past history. The use of silver as coinage dates back a long way, and the silver coins which we have used in recent times have always been token coins. That is to say, the silver in the coin has always been worth considerably less in terms- of sterling than the nominal value stamped upon the coin, except that in 1920, when Sir Austen Chamberlain was Chancellor of the Exchequer, for a short time the price of silver rose so high that it became profitable to melt down the coins in order to obtain and sell the metal, and Sir Austen Chamberlain introduced a new coin. I quote him because I am sure his name will be respected and his conduct command approval on the benches opposite. He was a most respectable Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, his action is a precedent which I can cite today. He felt it was proper and right to dilute the silver coinage, and it was he

who introduced a new coin consisting of 50 per cent. silver and 50 per cent. copper. The proportions were later altered to the alloy I have just mentioned, which constitutes the present silver coinage; but it was Sir Austen Chamberlain who took the first step along this path.
The value of the silver in a shilling at the moment, taking the price of 55½d.— 4s. 7½d.—per oz., is 5.22d. It is effectively a token coin now. There has been token coinage in this country since 1816, except for the short period of 1920 which I have mentioned, when the value temporarily rose to equal the nominal value of the coin. Therefore, I think we can feel that what we are proposing today can in no way be described as a debasement of the currency, or in any respect as an act which we should hesitate to take on grounds of national reputation. It is in line with much that has been done before.
With regard to the new coins, I have arranged for specimens of the new cupro-nickel coins to be placed in the Library, where hon. Members may care to look at them. The cupro-nickel alloy is a bright white metal, looking very much like the present silver coinage at first sight. Indeed, in Eire I am told that a cupro-nickel 6d. is circulating side by side with a silver 6d., and that the inhabitants of Eire, although quickwitted in many matters do not readily distinguish between the two coins as they circulate side by side. They will, of course, circulate side by side in this country, if this Bill is passed, for a number of years to come. The choice of this cupro-nickel alloy is based upon all relevant considerations, as the common phrase goes. The alternatives are all open to certain objections. Tin and zinc and aluminium are all too soft, I am advised, and iron and steel are too hard for use as coinage. The use of pure nickel has been advocated by some people. The Mond Nickel Company, who, of course, will take an entirely detached and scientific view of the matter, have been writing to the newspapers, either on their own account or through subsidiaries and mouthpieces, and they think there is nothing like pure nickel.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to the letter in "The Times" of today from the Agent-General for Ontario as coming from a mouthpiece?

Mr. Dalton: No, I am not referring to him. It is the Mond Nickel Co. who are behind the suggestion that there is nothing like nikel, and why not have 100 per cent. nickel? We have considered whether the coin should be made of pure nickel or of cupro-nickel, and we have formed the view that, without prejudice to further changes in the future, but for the present and as an immediate measure, we should have cupro-nickel rather than pure nickel, because our present machinery at the Mint is adapted to stamp cupro-nickel coins, but would need various modifications and changes to stamp pure nickel, and we are advised that, for all practical purposes, cupro-nickel will do. It is no more easy to counterfeit and forge than the existing silver coins, and we are satisfied that its appearance will be satisfactory. That, however, is without prejudice to further consideration later on, if the powers proposed in the Bill are given, to alternative metal contents for the token coinage.

Mr. Keeling: Can the Chancellor say whether the cupro-nickel coin's appearance continues satisfactory when it grows old?

Mr. Dalton: Nobody's appearance continues entirely satisfactory as he grows older, but I think it maintains its appearance as well as most. So much for the general background of the Bill. It is a simple Measure, and I think it would be convenient if I indicated briefly the powers conferred in the various Clauses. Clause I gives the status of legal tender to coins of cupro-nickel on the same basis as the silver coinage has now; that is to say, they are legal tender up to 40s. Clause 2 and the Schedule specify the composition and weight and limits the variation from the standard weight and composition. Clause 3—and I emphasise this point, because it has a bearing upon the argument that pure nickel would be better—gives power to vary in future the composition of nickel coins and to make coins out of metal other than cupro-nickel if the House should hereafter so desire. At the present time, we think cupro-nickel is the best substitute, but if in the future further metallurgical discoveries are made, or it seems on further consideration that some other combination of metals or pure metal would be better, then powers are given to enable that to be done.
Clause 4 provides for testing standard trial plates of pure metal against which the composition of the new coins would be tested Clause 5 deals with miscellaneous matters which I do not think I need describe in detail. Clause 6 contains a concession to sentimental and historical associations, because it provides that the Maundy money shall continue to be made of silver—silver pennies, twopenny, threepenny and fourpenny pieces distributed on behalf of His Majesty—and that the silver content of the Maundy money shall indeed be increased from 500 to 925-thousandths of pure silver. This is a relatively unimportant thing, but it has historical associations, and I think the House would wish this to be done. Clause 7 provides that the cost of all metal required should be met from issues out of the Consolidated Fund.
That is the whole of the Bill. I hope the House will look kindly upon it, and that we shall get it with reasonable expedition, because we are anxious not to incur further expense in the purchase of this expensive silver. If we can get the Bill quickly—before the end of this Session—we shall have enough silver in hand and will not need to buy any more. We hope we shall not need to buy any more. If the Bill is delayed, we shall have to make further expensive and unnecessary purchases.

3.59 p.m

Mr. Assheton: First, may I say how glad we are to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer back again on this side of the Atlantic? We hope that he has benefited greatly from the contacts he has been able to make over on the other side That, however, is the only happy thing I have to say, because we on this side of the House feel that this is rather a melancholy occasion and I think that the whole House will profoundly regret the passing of our silver coinage, if in fact that is to be. As the Chancellor has told us, silver has been the principal coinage of this country for a very long time, in fact for more than 1,200 years—since, I think, the time of King Offa of Mercia. Twelve hundred years is a very long time and such an association is not something to be lightly cast aside. Of course we recognise that silver has not, for some time, been the standard of our coinage, as the Chancellor has said. In 1816, I think it was, we


went on to a gold standard, and from that time onwards silver ceased to be the standard, and then the time came when the gold standard went, but the silver standard did not replace it.
This Bill proposes to do away altogether with the silver in our coins except in the case of the Maundy money to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. It does seem to us that many things in these days are getting nastier and of lower quality, and that nothing seems to get cheaper except money. What is the cause of this rather depressing proposal? The Chancellor has told us, and we are certainly bound to agree, that we have become much poorer, and in the view of His Majesty's Government at least we can no longer indulge in the luxury of a coinage which is at any rate half silver. As the result of the first world war, we lost our gold coinage; as the result of the second world war we are to lose our silver coins too. Someone drew my attention the other day to the fact that the Romans suffered a somewhat similar discomfort; after the first Punic War the value of the as was reduced from 12 ounces of copper to two, and after the second Punic War to one. The Chancellor has told us the main reasons governing his decision. He said that we have borrowed a large quantity of silver from the United States of America and that we have promised to pay that silver back We have undertaken to pay it back within five years, from a date which has not yet, in fact, arrived, but still we have to pay it back and there is no dispute about that. We are not quite sure why the United States wants the silver back; I understand that at the end of last year they had something like 1,720 million ounces of silver tucked away, but that of course is no concern of ours. We have undertaken to give it back and give it back we shall.
The Chancellor has said that the price of silver is now high That is a fact, and the price in the world market is a good bit higher than the price which the Chancellor named, and is certainly well above 6s. an ounce. That is not, however, as high a price as that which obtained after the last war when Sir Austen Chamberlain made the change to which the Chancellor referred, but it is only right to remember that in Sir Austen Chamberlain's day it had become essential to reduce the amount

of silver in the coins, because in 1920, when he introduced his Measure, the halt-crown was worth 3s. 4d. No Government could allow that situation to continue, and although the Chancellor bases himself on that precedent, and claims that he is no debaser of the coinage like Henry VIII, I do not think the case he made was quite as cast-iron—or a golden—as he chose to make out.
As a result of the present proposal a considerable amount of silver is to be acquired over the years. The Chancellor has told the House that this is a sensible thing to do, because we are going to be short of dollars and it would be, in his view—and I daresay the House may agree—rather difficult to justify spending many of our hard-earned dollars in the purchase of silver. We on this side of the House are bound to recognise that there is a good deal in that point of view. We are not, however, altogether happy about the powers given in Clause 3 to vary the coinage because we rather feel that that is something which Parliament should reserve to itself. But perhaps I may come to the question of the actual coinage proposed in a moment or two. I should like, in passing, to say that we do very much approve Clause 6 which once again makes Maundy money what it used to be before 1920—that is to say of real silver of a fineness at any rate of .925, and I feel that the hand of some traditionalist, in the Treasury or the Mint, must have been responsible for such a happy Clause in an otherwise unhappy Bill.
I do not doubt for one moment that the people of this country would prefer to use the coins to which they have been accustomed. The chink of silver is I think better than the chink of cupro-nickel, although I have not yet tried the latter. The gambler is more tempted to be reckless when he is playing with chips than when he is playing with real money Nevertheless, however much we on this side of the House may dislike the proposal in this Bill, we are not minded to vote against the Second Reading, for the reasons which the Chancellor has given and which I have endorsed. It is obvious to us, however, that it is desirable that the new coins we are to have should be as worthy as possible, and I know the Chancellor agrees about that.
What are the qualities which are needed in coins? First, I should say they ought


to be of good appearance and capable of maintaining that appearance. The point raised in an interjection by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) is a very sound one indeed. After the last war, when the silver in coins was reduced to 50 per cent., we had for a certain time a very inferior kind of half-crown. I have one in my pocket now. It was not creditable either to the Mint or to this country, and in the course of time it was altered. We are very anxious to avoid similar mistakes on this occasion. If we cannot wear real silk stockings, let us have the very best lisle thread; let us have an article which is at least serviceable, and will maintain its appearance over a period.
The things we want in coins then are, first, that they should be of good appearance and that the good appearance should be maintained; secondly, I think they should be difficult to counterfeit, and thirdly, as far as possible, they should be hygienic. There was an interesting letter in "The Times" today to which I thought the Chancellor was about to refer, although evidently he had some other correspondence in mind which I have not seen. The letter in question deals with this very subject of cupro-nickel coins and comes from the Agent General for Ontario. I do not conceal the fact that those in Canada are deeply interested in the future of nickel, but let us look at some of the criticisms which are made and see if they are of importance. The Agent General for Ontario states, for example, that cupro-nickel is
drab, dull, and yellowish in appearance, is not stainless, is a soft metal, loses shape, corrodes and pits easily, thereby attracting dirt.
Those are rather serious criticisms of a coinage, and although the new cupro-nickel coins, the patterns of which the Chancellor has placed in the Library for hon. Members to inspect, look very nice at present, we on this side are anxious to know what they will look like when they have been in our pockets for a few years after, perhaps, being left lying about on a publichouse counter with a lot of beer spilt over them, which may well be the fate of our coins now and then. We want to know whether these coins will stand up to hard wear
The Agent General for Ontario raised another point; he said that one of the main arguments against cupro-nickel is that the

coinage is so readily counterfeited. The Chancellor has denied that, but I think it is a matter on which we may press him a little further when we come to the Committee stage. We propose to raise these matters again and to go into them in detail because we feel that it is the duty of hon. Members of this House to see that our coinage is of the very best possible standard. This is in no sense a political matter and I hope, therefore, that the whole House will give its mind and attention to the matter and that hon. Members will do all they can to help the Chancellor in this problem.
On the question of counterfeiting, the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is that cupro-nickel is softer, which makes it easier to deal with. There is one advantage in it being softer, and that is that a higher relief is obtainable, which certainly gives the coinage an added attraction. That seems almost the only point that can be urged against nickel coinage, which in every other respect seems to be desirable. The Chancellor has told us of the practical difficulties. He has told us that the Mint have not the equipment—I suppose that means furnace and rolling equipment—to deal with the job at the present time. We must ask ourselves whether we are right in that case to go ahead with this matter straight away, or whether it would not be wiser to wait and get the equipment, in order to make the very best coins. The Chancellor's answer is that he does not want to go out and buy any more silver, and that if this change is not made here and now, he will be put in the position of having to do so. That matter we shall go into more carefully in the Committee stage. I warn the Chancellor that on this side of the House we shall probably put down Amendments to raise this matter.
Probably the only way of dealing with the situation immediately would be to buy nickel blanks and use them for the coinage. I think it will be quite possible, although my long-term proposal is that it would be far better if the Mint had the necessary machinery and equipment to make the coins throughout the whole process. The Chancellor may urge that there would still be delays about design and so on, but I do not think they would be very serious. We do not very much like the proposal in Clause 3 that powers to vary our coinage should be exercised by Proclamation. We think that that


power should not be in the Bill and that the Chancellor should come to the House again if at any time he thinks it desirable to alter the coinage.
There is one other point I would mention. I appreciate, and I am sure all hon. Members appreciate, that the Bill does not, in itself, involve any alteration in the purchasing value of money. The silver coins we use are already token currency, and not standard currency at all. None the less, these are times in which we must be very careful not to upset confidence. Obviously the Chancellor has that consideration clearly in mind. The confidence of people in the coinage is not so likely to be upset in this country as it would be in an Oriental country, where these problems are regarded perhaps in a rather different light; yet the point about confidence has to be considered. Therefore, it is only right to suggest that, at a time when he is making changes in the coinage, the Chancellor should take very great pains indeed to see that money does not lose its value.
Many hon. Members on this side of the House, and I dare say on the Government side, have been disturbed by the increasing amount of inflation which has been stimulated recently by the present Government's effort to maintain cheap money through extensive purchases that they have been making in the gilt-edged market. Cheap money is all very well, and is very desirable if it comes from natural causes, but when it comes from the Treasury supporting the market, it must be viewed with some suspicion. The Chancellor ought to be very careful to see that the purchasing power of money is maintained. It is very much easier to produce bank credit than to produce coal. I hope that when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury replies, he will give us some reassurance on that point. If the new inflationary tendencies are to be checked, various steps have to be taken, into which I will not go now. All I want to say this afternoon is that my hon. Friends will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading, but I warn the Chancellor that, when the Bill reaches the Committee stage, which I understand is to be taken on Friday, we shall probably put down Amendments. At any rate, we shall want to go very closely into the manner in which the new coins are to be made.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Norman Smith: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the junior Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) ever goes into publichouses. I do, and I can assure him that coins of the realm just never lie about on the counter. Indeed, I cannot imagine a more unsafe place for them to lie. I have sometimes admired the ingenuity of publicans in devising apparatus well behind the bar, to accommodate the takings.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London has given us a wonderful exposition of his great genius for emphasising the unimportant, as he so often does in this House. Apart from the obvious matter of Maundy money, to which he referred with emphasis, perhaps the best example of it was when he talked about confidence. He insisted that Parliament must control the coinage, but let us look at the matter. With what is the Bill concerned? It is concerned, certainly, with our money, but only about 2 per cent. of our money assumes metallic form. Coinage is only the small change of business, and I cannot feel that it is very important. The right hon. Gentleman did not say a word about the much wider aspects of the question of our money. I do not propose to go into them now, but I would remind the House that about 20 per cent. of our money is circulated in the form of Bank of England notes over which, until last year, the Government had no control. About 80 per cent. of our money exists in even less tangible form. It exists only as rows of figures in bankers' books. It is created out of nothing and takes the form of bank deposits, which circulate from the account of one person to the account of another, in the form of cheques There is no need to raise the question of confidence in this Debate. We are dealing with coinage, that is, with something which is comparatively unimportant.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to what happened in 1920 and he felt impelled, I do not know why, to justify Mr. Austen Chamberlain, as he was then. When Mr. Austen Chamberlain carried through his Coinage Act in 1920 he debased the silver coinage to the tune of 50 per cent. At that time silver was at a very high price, about 82d. an ounce, if I remember rightly. But during that same year, 1920, it fell to 42d.; and


within two years it was down to 32d. There is not very much in the right hon. Gentleman's point.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—whom I also am glad to see safely back from America—has had good technical advice about these cupro-nickel coins. Some of us remember the disastrous results after the Act of 1920, when the coins used to turn brown or green, and some even were known to disintegrate under the impact of everyday use. My right hon. Friend has to face a rather grim possibility. It could happen—I hope it will not—that the circulation of the new cupro-nickel coinage might tarnish not only the linings of our trouser pockets, but also the good name of His Majesty's Government. If that should happen, I have an idea for the Chancellor of the Exchequer which might help him out. Suppose this coinage, which is 2 per cent. of our money, tends to look bad after a few years, and His Majesty's Government begins in consequence to forfeit some of the high esteem in which it is now held, the Chancellor of the Exchequer can quite easily get that esteem back in a very short time. All of us are much more concerned with our bank notes than with small change, and all he has to do is to introduce a nice new design of bank note, restoring the effigy of His Majesty which the Tory Party took off the banknote in 1928. He can also restore to the banknote an engraving of this Palace of Westminster which the Tory Party took off the banknote in 1928. If there is any loss of prestige due to an apparent deterioration of the currency, the Chancellor can get it back in this way.

Mr. Assheton: The Tory Party have never changed the banknote, as the hon Gentleman knows quite well. They were Treasury notes at that time and not banknotes.

Mr. Smith: The Tory Party passed the Currency and Banknotes Act of 1928, which suppressed Treasury notes and merged their issue with that of the banknotes. I leave the House to judge between us. I do not think this new currency-is going to be second-rate or unworthy of a great nation. Indeed, I rather welcome anything which tends to destroy the prestige of money. Prestige is something very different from the confidence we want

people to have in the coinage. Prestige is merely a matter of superstition, unlike confidence which depends on reason. When I first came to work in London before World War I, my weekly wage was five golden sovereigns and a five shilling piece. Money was regarded by most people in those days with something which amounted almost to superstition—[Interruption.] Yes, I was an extremely well paid member of the proletariat. Fleet Street always was comparatively well paid. Money at that epoch was regarded by most people with something like superstition, but we have gone a long way since that time. People are beginning to understand what I want them to understand, that money is not wealth in itself or something which one can hoard in order to keep its value. Money is tickets entitling the holder to consume his share of the goods and services on offer, and I want people to look at it in that way. This Bill helps to remove the illusion that money is something to which we must always bow down.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London said that we are living in an age when things are getting nasty. That is only to a limited extent true. People who are accustomed to privilege will have to face up to some reduction of privilege for a few years, but for most people—the people who sent us on this side here—life, so far from getting nastier, is going to get very much nicer. I have one criticism of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has apparently forgotten to insert any Clause tightening up the penalties against counterfeiters and coiners. After all, coiners are people who take on themselves, without authority, to expand and therefore dilute the circulating medium. It is possible to argue with some cogency that in a serious depression like that in the years 1932 and 1933 forgers, by making more purchasing power available, are performing a public service notwithstanding their purely individualistic and privately enterprising motives. But we have a Labour Government now. My right hon. Friend is sitting on the Front Bench and he is likely to continue sitting there for many years. I believe there will be no more depression for quite a lot of years, and that being so, the anti-social activities of the coiner stand out for what they are, and it is no longer possible to palliate their activities. There is something to be said for tightening up


the penalties, but if my right hon. Friend does that, as I trust he may, I hope he will make the penalties of universal application and extend them not only to those who as coiners dilute the circulating currency medium, but also to the perfectly respectable people with offices in the City of London who, lending ten times what they have in their tills, swell the circulating currency by creating immense bank deposits. I could never understand why bankers should be honoured for perpetrating the very offence for which heavy penalties are visited on coiners. I hope my right hon. Friend will look into that.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I welcome the opportunity of taking a small part in this Debate. I remember the Coinage Act passed after the first world war and I remember that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was let in for a certain amount of trouble as a result of it. He produced then, not as bad a coin as will probably be produced today, but a really bad coin, and there was a good deal of trouble. I object to this Bill from two points of view. I was not convinced even before the Chancellor's speech that there was any necessity to depart from the basis of silver and since the right hon. Gentleman's speech I am nearer to complete conviction that there is very little reason for leaving silver as a basis of coinage at the present time. I fully realise the difficulties as far as the repayment of silver to the United States is concerned. The proposal is, I understand, that we shall repay to the United States something like 20,000,000 ounces each year for three years—

Mr. Dalton: For some years to come.

Mr. Williams: Let us look at it from that point of view. That is a very considerable proportion of the world's production of silver. I am not sure what the world's production of silver is today, but round about 1940 the world production of silver was in the neighbourhood of 210 to 220 million ounces. The main producer is Mexico. Production of silver in the British Empire was something like 37 million ounces. Canada produced 23 million ounces in 1940. The argument for the use of silver is that we are in fact producing a considerable amount of silver within the Empire and that there are

probably considerable supplies within the Empire. Silver could be produced in this country, though not to a large extent, but when it is possible to produce it in the Empire, is it right, because we have to make this repayment to the United States at the present time, to take away one of the factors which has helped the production of silver in the past by taking the English silver coinage away, and replacing it by some other metal? From the material point of view of producing silver, that is one of the things we ought to weigh against the fact that we have to make this repayment to the American people. After all, anything we can produce ourselves is something to encourage us.
May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the matter a little clearer to me than he has done? As to this 20 million ounces that we have to hand over in the next few years, is there any immediate demand at the present minute from America to have that silver now? What we shall have to pay in the next few months cannot be very big. I should like a further explanation of whether there is any real pressure at the present time from America that this payment should be made immediately. Might not it be possible, by some Lend-Lease system of silver, to get a transfer of, say Canadian silver to the United States to get over the difficulty?
It has been pointed out that there has been a considerable rise in the cost of silver and that that is the real reason why the right hon. Gentleman feels obliged to act in this way. Before we consider the other side of it, surely there is some value in having a silver coinage in this country from a purely sentimental point of view? I do not expect that argument to appeal to a dehydrated professor, for instance, but the ordinary person in the street who has a shilling, even if it be worth only 5d. worth of silver, if he hears silver is going up, feels he has something of his own which is of value. I do not believe, any more than the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith), in the worship of money, but the possession of something of real value helps enormously to create a sense of security in the country as a whole. I deprecate that we should choose this particular time to go off silver. I am not in any way depreciating the fact of our debt to America but, from our point of view, I think it


unfortunate to do this at present. In Clause 6 the Chancellor has made a concession to sentiment with regard to Maundy money; it is true only a very small concession, and it relates only to a very ancient privilege and affects a small number of people. Surely, however, we have the right to put before the House the privilege of the ordinary Briton to hold in his pocket a silver coin which is of some value?
That is where I stand in the matter of silver. The main object of the Bill—having abolished silver—is to introduce cupro-nickel. I cannot imagine any worse metal of which to make coins, although from the point of view of the good Socialist I cannot imagine any more suitable metal for that purpose. Naturally the Government like it, but let us look at it from some angles, if not all. First, it is very cheap indeed. That, of course, they obviously think an advantage. In other words, the people who hold these coins have something which is only a token, something which is of absolutely no value. That, I can see, would naturally appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite. It gives nothing in the way of security. Let us look at it from another point of view. By taking away silver and substituting this metal, the Chancellor is really levying a tax which is being borne by every person who holds any silver coin. It is true he is not allowed to do anything with it, but it is something of actual value which he is losing and from that point of view, it is a carefully concealed tax. Then again, I think it is a very great pity, from a purely Imperial point of view, not to use nickel. Nickel has been one of the most valuable exports of Canada for a considerable time. I am not in the least interested in any company, but nickel has been and always will be, of great Imperial value. That is the Canadian point of view.
Now let me take the home point of view. Is there not in South Wales a nickel factory which could be used for refining nickel at the present time? Can anyone tell me whether that factory is working to its full capacity at present? Is it working to more than 5 or 10 per cent. of its capacity? Might we not, by adopting nickel, which is harder and takes longer to work, do something to help that South Wales factory production? Again, if we could increase the production of nickel in

this country considerably, it would help to restore what was a valuable trade before the war. I say frankly that a good advertisement in the shape of a first-class nickel coin, is one of the best things to help our export trade, in the manufacture of coins for other countries as we had before the war.
There is another point with regard to cupro-nickel. It is of comparatively little use in time of war, and I suggest that a reserve of pure nickel coinage is a very valuable war reserve. I believe it was found that in Germany during the last war there was a reserve of coins of practically 95 per cent. nickel. From that point of view it would be valuable, and would naturally appeal to us but obviously would not appeal to the present Government. There are many other ways in which cupro-nickel coins would appeal to the Government, but I would like the Chancellor to tell us before the Debate ends why cupro-nickel was withdrawn from circulation in India. Was it because it got dirty? I have looked at the lovely shining coins in the Library, but how long will they remain in that condition? Would it not be a shame if, in 12 months' time, these bright new coins became filthy and stained? It is almost certain too that this metal is much more liable to carry disease than pure nickel. It is almost certain that it will get very dirty. It would really wring my heart if, after 12 months, all these lovely new coins became to be known as "dirty Daltons," and if the right hon. Gentleman had to withdraw them from circulation. I say that from a friendly point of view. I warn the right hon. Gentleman against this decision, and, if he takes it, I hope he will not blame me later for the consequences.
There is another angle from which I appeal to the Government. As I understand it, this alloy has been found by experience to be the metal counterfeiters would most wish to have. It is very soft. Is the Chancellor absolutely certain about it? He only said that it was not very good, and I have no doubt he has reams of information on it. Is he certain that a hard nickel coin is easier to counterfeit than a comparatively soft cupro-nickel coin? Those are other reasons why I am against this particular coin. On the other hand, if we have to make a change from silver—which I regard as going backwards almost to prehistoric times—I am in


favour of nickel. It is the hardest metal and most useful for this purpose. I have no doubt that harder metal can be obtained, but from the practical point of view, and by reason of the fact that it does not wear the pocket to a great extent, it is probably as good as any metal. From the hygienic point of view I think it is far better than cupro-nickel. It is not so likely to pick up stains, dirt and rust. It is clean, and likely to remain in good condition for a fairly long time. That in itself is a value.
We differ vitally from the Government in another respect. I think that as an Empire product it is far better to encourage the production of nickel than of this alloy. I have no reason to suppose that the Empire production of nickel is not going on fairly well at present. We might do something to help trade and industry and I also think that nickel would be much more satisfactory to prevent forgery.
I am told that nickel has a further advantage over nearly all other metals in that it is magnetic. By an ordinary magnet one can detect whether a nickel coin is good, or not. That is an advantage worth consideration. Under all these circumstances, although I regret that the Bill has been brought in, and although I hope there will be some Amendments of a substantial nature on the Committee stage and, possibly, on the Report stage, I wish to say nothing which will in any way hurt the position in regard to repayment to America. If that position is as the Chancellor suggested, we have to accept it. But I am sorry that at this tag end of a Session we should be bringing in a Bill abolishing the silver coinage, which has stood for much all over the world, especially in India. I rather wonder why this is not happening in conjunction with India. If there is to be a Second Reading for this Bill, under the circumstances it will not be opposed, although it is a dismal thing at the end of a Session, and I suppose there will have to be an amending Bill in a few years.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Richards: I should like to join in the welcome extended to this Bill by hon. Members on all sides of the House. In doing that, I find myself in the invidious position of agreeing with a

great deal that has been said by hon. Members opposite. I have considerable sympathy with the view expressed, that it is a pity we are coming to an end of a very interesting chapter in our history, in that we are dispensing for ever with our silver coinage. Silver coinage in this country has had a very long history. Owing to the particularly important position we have always held in financial and commercial circles, our coinage has had a considerable influence on the coinages of other nations.
I presume this kind of change was bound to come sooner or later. There was a time when we were particularly proud of our gold coinage, and the English gold sovereign was known all over the world. It had a currency which probably no other coin has ever had. But at the beginning of the first world war we found we could not afford to keep our golden coins, and consequently they disappeared altogether. Now has come the turn of silver to disappear also. The explanation, I take it, is twofold, although I did not quite follow the Chancellor in this respect. In the first place, it is too expensive to buy silver and use it as a coin, just as it was in the case of the golden sovereign. The Chancellor said that he does not want to buy any more at the moment, at any rate, and we are very deeply indebted to the United States to whom we have given a definite promise to pay back the silver we borrowed during the dark years of war. The Chancellor thinks, quite rightly, that this is possibly an easy way of recovering a great deal of silver, about £50 million worth, and paying our debt to America by instalments. Silver is expensive to use in coins, and our debt to America is a first concern of the Treasury, and must be. Consequently, we must dispose of our silver coins, and substitute' something else for them.
The Chancellor has decided in favour of an alloy of copper and nickel. I am sorry he has come to this decision because, judging from the speeches we have heard, and from what little I have read, the un-suitability of nickel is undoubtedly very great. In India, some years ago, this alloy was introduced. There it was found to be very easy to counterfeit the coins. Consequently, those coins had to be withdrawn very shortly afterwards. That is a very serious consideration. We do not want a coin, however beautiful it may


appear in a glass case in the Library, to be introduced, and then have to withdraw it after a very few years. Another point has been made that it would be a very dirty coin, and in a short time would appear to be quite unworthy of this great country which for centuries has had a first-class silver coinage, and for many years had a first-class gold coinage.
What probably weighed with the Chancellor was the relative cost of the two. I understand that it will cost the Chancellor something like £2,000,000 a year to get the alloy upon which he has set his mind, but if he had pure nickel, it would cost him another £1,250,000 per year. I do not think that that is a great difference, when all is said and done, in view of the considerable profit which the Treasury will make by calling in the silver coins. I understand that the profit will be in the region of £50 million.

Mr. Dalton: Thirty million pounds. Might I explain that £50 million is the gross saving due to the withdrawal of the silver coins from circulation? When account is taken of the repayment of silver to the United States that gross saving becomes a net saving of £30 million.

Mr. Richards: In view of what the Chancellor has said, I do not think that he ought to begrudge another £1,250,000 a year to get a really satisfactory coin. Nickel has considerable merits. It is easily seen and detected, and, as has been pointed out, has certain magnetic qualities which make it still easier to detect. In addition to that, it is particularly hard, it carries an impress for a long time, and it is quite a clean metal. If we are to substitute a very inferior alloy for our present silver coinage, I rather agree with those who have suggested that that is a backward step.
We may be in serious financial difficulties at the moment. We know our economic position is not what it was 20, 30 or 50 years ago. Yet I think we ought to struggle to produce a coinage—if a change is to be made, and I quite agree with that—of which we can be reasonably proud. Nickel would answer the purpose admirably from that point of view. Stanley Jevons, many years ago, said that possibly the only thing that would survive from our civilisation would be its coins—we have realised, in the course of the last war, that that is quite a possibility—and

he asked if there was any reason why these coins should not be as artistic and well produced as possible. The Bill that has been introduced by the Chancellor loses an opportunity in not selecting a material that is only a little more expensive than the one he suggests, and which is, on all other counts, far superior to the alternative he suggests Consequently, as I have already said, although I shall certainly not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, I have some feeling about the step which the Chancellor is proposing to take and I think it would be much better if he substituted nickel for the alloy which he has proposed.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: There is unanimity in the House today about the welcome to the Chancellor on his return, and I should like to associate myself with it. There is a great deal of unanimity, too, about the Bill itself. We regret the necessity for it, we regret the passing of silver. I agree with the speeches that have been made on this side of the House, and the speech of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards). It is one of those Bills which is the measure of our poverty. We have to resort to this in order to discharge our obligations under Lend-Lease to the United States. The simple question is: Which is the better way of doing it? I listened to the Chancellor's speech, in which he said it should be done by the use of cupro-nickel, and I think I am doing him justice in saying that the reason why he objected to nickel was not the question of expense. The hon. Member for Wrexham said that the question of expense was only an additional £1,250,000 a year. No point was made by the Chancellor about that
The point he made was that the Mint had the necessary plant to deal with cupro-nickel but not with nickel. Very good That is an admission in itself that cupro-nickel is not being chosen on merit, but because of the position at the Mint. The answer to that is we have the facilities in this country, and in South Wales, to deal with it. The plant is there, the labour can be provided, and it would be a great contribution to the unemployment problem in South Wales. Here is an opportunity for the Government to implement its undertakings to South Wales, and an opportunity for the Chancellor to do something to help his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. This is


a case in which employment could be provided in South Wales, and an adequate coinage secured, although we should not use the machinery of the Mint, because the necessary machinery is not there. Instead of using an admittedly inferior metal, let us use the superior metal and thereby give employment to South Wales. It is not often that I support the arguments of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), but he put forward the best argument that has been put forward for the use of nickel. It will give us a better coinage, and contribute something to the solution of unemployment in South Wales.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Scollan: I wish to support the Chancellor in bringing forward this Bill. I had intended to deal with the point which was dealt with just now about the machinery in the Mint not being able to mint coins of a different tension. Obviously, unless we can get other machinery for the Mint we require to mint coins of a metal of the same tension as those we are using at present. High tension metal cannot be minted in a machine which is built for the purpose of dealing with medium or low-tension metal. Apart from that, I feel privileged to be here on an occasion which, many years hence, will be regarded as historic—the passing of the silver coinage The first recognised coinage of this country was a silver coinage. Even today, in our most modern coinage, if one looks at a pound note one sees
We, the Directors of the Bank of Scotland"—
or some other bank—
promise to pay the Bearer on Demand the sum of One Pound sterling.
That means one pound avoirdupois weight of silver. It is rather amusing sometimes when one reads in the Press, especially in the contributions of the geniuses who write the City notes, about "sterling," when what is obviously meant is the receipts for sterling.
We now have a coinage which originates from the date when the first receipt was issued. Incidentally, it may interest the Chancellor, though he may know already, to hear that a Scotsman named William Paterson was responsible. It was he, a goldsmith of the City of London, who founded the Bank of England. When the

traders of the Continent came to this country to buy wool, which is symbolised in the Woolsack, they brought gold and silver with them. In those days a lot of people—inspired by private enterprise—used to waylay them and relieve them of their responsibility. As a result, they went to a Scot named William Paterson and laid their responsibilities with him. He gave them a receipt which they carried. To this day, we carry receipts in the same way, the only difference being that if we present our receipts, unlike William Paterson who would give us a pound sterling, those responsible could not give us a pound sterling today. From then on, it was discovered by some very astute Englishmen—if the Chancellor will pardon me for this aspersion on the past of his predecessors—that they could issue the receipts without the necessary metal. Then we had inflation—the first inflation.
I have no doubt but that the cheap type of Tory during the Committee stage will try to get in some kind of skit on the debasement of the currency. I forestall that by reminding them, if they do not know already, that this is only a matter of taking the silver reserve of the country to pay back a debt to the Americans who have not yet learned that real wealth does not lie in useless metal. That great reserve will be sent back, and in the course of time the Americans will learn that they have a great reserve of silver as they had of gold. Then they will have to call the nations together, as they did in the case of gold, to see whether they can find some means of realising the real value of what they buried in the vaults. The Chancellor is not the first who has debased the coinage in our time. [Laughter.] My hon. Friends opposite are laughing. The "caretaker" Government debased the paper coinage. Our paper coinage was issued on the understanding that it would buy gold at 168s. per fine ounce. The "caretaker" Government debased it by raising the figure to 172s. 3d., an increase of 4s. 3d. per fine ounce, to the tune of the 12,000,000 ounces which come out of Africa every year, thus getting 4s. 3d. extra. That is something new to hon. Members. They never thought of that. Their education goes on apace.
I am concerned at the kind of coinage which we shall have in the future. I think everybody is concerned, including the Chancellor. I wonder whether he


would be well advised to have another look at this matter and consider again whether we should have a real nickel coin or this cupro-nickel coin. I do not know, but I make bold to say that the finest coining machinery which the world has ever known was made and is worked in this country. I know that specially artistic and very highly skilled people are required to make the necessary dies and machinery. I do not know whether there is a shortage of that kind of labour but, while I am shedding no tears for the passing of the silver which is to be sent to our American friends—who are still in about the same stage of development with regard to knowledge of currency and international trade and commerce as we were about 50 years ago—I am still of the opinion that while the passage of the Bill would not be retarded, the Chancellor might delay putting this into operation until we have the necessary machinery to guarantee to his satisfaction a coinage of a standard that befits a great nation.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Drayson: I do not consider that the Chancellor has by any means made his case clear. While he has had many welcomes on his return from America, I think the country and the House have got used to Ministers who return from that country usually having given something away while they have been there. On this occasion it would appear that the Chancellor has parted with £20 million worth of silver. At least, we might have expected that he could have made some other arrangement. Recently we had a large dollar loan. Perhaps a little of that could have been given to the Americans in satisfaction of their demands for this metal and we could have retained our present coinage.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it should be made quite clear that this silver amounting to 88,000,000 ounces, to which he has referred, was a loan. We have had the silver and it is now a question of repaying it

Mr. Drayson: Yes. My suggestion was that we should repay the loan in dollars instead of silver. I regard this clearly as a panic measure. Other hon. Members have described how silver rose to some phenomenal price in the early twenties and how after a year or two it returned

to normal. Those countries which before the war produced large quantities of silver have been occupied in other pursuits during the last six years and per-haps the silver mining industry has been disrupted. However, it cannot be very long before those concerned who have left their wartime pursuits will return once more to the task of winning silver from the earth.
Therefore, the high price which exists today will be reduced again to a price which will allow us to retain silver in our coinage. This is one more example of the determination of hon. Gentlemen opposite—and they have expressed this in words and writing before now—to ensure that our currency is nothing but a series of meaningless symbols. There has been no attempt so far on the part of the public to hoard the silver coinage which is now in circulation. When they learn, as a result of this Debate, that the shilling contains only five pennyworth of silver, they will be still less inclined to keep any of this money out of circulation. We have heard that the amount involved in the whole of our silver coinage is £50 million, that only £20 million is required to satisfy the Americans, and that £30 million will be available as profit to the Treasury.
I would like to put forward a suggestion to the Chancellor for his consideration. Will he consider issuing a five-shilling note? That would account for half the silver in circulation, and, at his will, he can withdraw the other half and from it pay back the silver which he owes to the United States. After all, the great American nation, with more than 100 million population and its vast commerce, conducts this daily with the dollar bill, which is worth, in terms of sterling at the present time, five shillings. If we move to another country which has one of the soundest currencies in the world at the present time, Switzerland, we find there that the lowest paper denomination is that of five francs, worth about six shillings at the official rate of exchange. I do not want a whole mass of paper currency, such as we have found in other European countries, but we have these two precedents worth five and six shillings respectively which we might consider. I feel that there are possiblities there, and that many of us who find our pockets, after many years, getting rather threadbare.
would be glad to reduce the amount of metal in them while keeping our paper money elsewhere.
I consider that the public should be able to feel that the coins which they have in their pockets have some value, and we shall regret very much the passing of our silver. The Chancellor is not here, but I would say to him that, rather than go down to history as the man who produced the "dirty Daltons," which we fear these new cupro-nickel coins will ultimately be called, he might produce a "Dalton" five shilling note which could look the dollar squarely in the face. I hope that, after further thought, either my suggestion will be adopted or that that other metal, nickel, whose virtues have been extolled from both sides of the House, will be given full consideration.

5.13 p.m.

Major Vernon: There is only one plea which I wish to make and it arises from a remark made by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris). He said that silver, which had such a history in our coinage, was to be abandoned for ever, and those words "for ever" depressed me very much indeed. I can understand the needs of the Chancellor and the importance of getting out of debt to America. Much as I deplore the disappearance of silver from our money, I cannot but say that, for this purpose of partly restoring the balance between ourselves and the United States, it is something which has to be done. But I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will hold out some hope that, when this period is over, silver may be restored to the coinage.
We have had so many objections from various parts of the House to the proposals that have been made that I think there is a general feeling that the proposals themselves are open to a good many objections. Why is it that I am so attracted to silver? It is that it holds for us historical and traditional links, and it reflects in a way the English character. When I say the English character, I do not mean good character only, because good and bad character, especially in our kings, have been reflected in our currency. In fact, I might say that the kings who were called "good" were those who maintained the value of the currency, and that those, who were called bad kings were the kings

who let it down. This debasement of the currency, or inflation, as, in our more mealy-mouthed times, it is termed, is a practice which is very old indeed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) said that in Roman times coins were debased by being decreased in size. We in Britain have decreased the quantity of metal in our coins, and also the quality, and it is not only the coin itself to which this traditional interest attaches. It is also the words that are associated with it. The penny was one-pennyweight of silver, or 24 grains, and it was laid down on the subject of the standard of the grain, that it was to be taken from the middle of the ear. The pound was a pound weight of silver, and so, in very many other ways, there are traditional links with English history and the ideas which have been associated with it all the way through.
There are numerous links with the silver currency which add to the interest, and, I think, to the affection, with which some of us regard this device which we have used in this country. Concerning the decrease in quantity of metal in the money, it is interesting to remember that, in Saxon times, the penny was really a pennyweight of silver and of 24 grains. That quantity of metal in the coin was maintained for about 500 years, when it dropped to 22½ grains. The reason for this decrease in the weight of metal, I believe, came from the fact that the king felt it was his responsibility to his subjects to maintain the coinage at this standard weight or size, and, of course, they had to have his portrait on one side. Whether this portrait was put there as a guarantee of quantity or quality, or as Royalist publicity, I am not quite sure, but in course of time the portrait began to wear off and there was the necessity for calling in those coins and sending out fresh ones. Then the king began to discover that he did not get so many coins to send out again from the silver which he got back, because the silver had disappeared in wear. For a while, the king made up this loss out of his own resources. But there came a day when he said he could stand it no longer, and, instead of 24 grains, they would only put in 22½ grains. Further reductions followed. In 1400, it went down to 18; in 1500 to 12; in 1600 to nine; in 1900 to seven, where it remained until 1920, when, as we have been reminded, Sir Austen Chamberlain reduced


it to 3½ and now we come to the sad point where it disappears altogether.
As to the quality, it was maintained steadily at 92 per cent. pure silver, and that standard quality of purity of the British coin gave us some prestige all over Europe for a long period. It was one of our bad kings, financially, who upset the business again, and he was Henry VIII, who was rather an extravagant King and who found it difficult to make both ends meet. He was also an ingenious person and he reduced the percentage of silver in the coins from 92 to 75, and, at the same time, made them smaller. He tried it first on the Irish, and they never seemed to notice any difference and, having found he could do it with the Irish, he tried it on the British. It went down moderately well, because, in those days, if one took it badly, the king took it badly too, and the same thing happened to all those who objected too strongly to the actions of that particular monarch. It was not only by reducing the size and quantity of the coinage that Henry VIII did well for himself. His father made only £100 a year out of turning people's raw metal into coins, but Henry put up the charge by stages from 8d. in the £ until it became 8s. in the £. He also kept people waiting for their money. They brought their gold and silver to the Mint, but, when they came a few weeks later and asked for their coins, it was like getting clothes back from the laundry today. They came again and again, and he kept them waiting for months, using the money in the meantime.
I am sorry to put all these ideas into hon. Members' heads and hope that too much notice will not be taken of them. But they are really part of the historical story and part of my appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put the silver back into the coins when he gets the chance. It was not only Sir Austen Chamberlain who made a profit out of this proceeding. I have the record of how much Henry VIII gained by handling the currency. From gold he made £40,600 3s., and from silver £186,778 8s. 9¼d. I think I have said enough to explain my attachment to this particular metal in relation to our currency, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to give us some word of hope that, in due course, the silver will be restored.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. David Eccles: I am sure the House will join with me in congratulating the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon) on his most agreeable and traditional speech. The noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) tells me that the ghost of Sir Charles Oman walks again. I agree with him that cupro-nickel is a bad alloy, and I also agree that we have to repay the silver. The only point I wish to make is that I was surprised at the levity with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the Second Reading of this Bill. One would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have regarded the introduction of cupro-nickel into our coinage, very much as the Foreign Secretary regards the introduction of crypto-Communism into the Labour movement. Both are shocking concessions to the poverty of the nation.
If we were still a wealthy country, and if we still had large export surpluses such as we formerly enjoyed, then I do not doubt that we should still have a gold coinage like the United States of America. It is a stroke of good business for a rich country to have an intrinsic value to its coinage, because all the other countries of the world are more willing to write their contracts in a currency which has an intrinsic value and, therefore, the nation that is already rich, gets richer still. But what we are doing this afternoon is parting with one of the outward and visible signs of British wealth. We have to take this step, but are we wise to pretend—and this is my charge against the right hon. Gentleman—that it does not really matter how cheap and nasty is our coinage? It seems to me that the Chancellor was saying to the British public something like this: "You are in debt and you have very little money. Therefore, you must pawn your silver watch and chain at my Government shop. You really do not need a watch at all. There are plenty of clocks in public places and you can dial 'TIM' on somebody else's telephone, if you want to know the time. As a matter of fact you have been wasting your money ever to have a watch at all. "That is the language of the "Rake's Progress" and the language of the tempter who suggests to his victim that virtue is so far impaired that there is no innocence left worth preserving.
I am very sorry to see the Government take that line. Surely, the proper course would be to tell the people the truth and to say, "We are desperately hard up—very nearly bankrupt"—and to have explained that, in those circumstances, we had to part with silver, but at the same time making it clear that we were all determined to work unceasingly until we regained the substance and the ornament of respectability and a high standard of life. Getting rid of silver from our coinage is another stage in the deterioration of our standard of life. I do not like the soft way in which the Government speak to the people about the real nature of our difficulties. The House knows that I am a believer in precisely the opposite method. If I were His Majesty's Government, I would tell the people the hard truth and make an appeal to all British men and women for the time being to pocket their fads and fancies, and to work together in order that the country might be put on its feet again. If that were done, I believe that a tremendous response would come from the people. But that is not what the Government do; they ask us almost to welcome this step towards poverty.
The new coinage, if the Lord Privy Seal will allow me to say so, is going to have a still further drawback. It will be symbolic with a new meaning. The Mint is going to issue bright and attractive coins—attractive to children and magpies. But we know that within a short time such coins will tarnish and that dirt will cloud their shine, and then children will have to be smacked for playing with them, and magpies will refuse to collect them. What a perfect symbol of the career of this Government. Here is a Government which came into power in July, 1945, bright and shiny with promises. Now, only 15 months afterwards, we find them grubby in their performance. In the pocket and purse of every British subject there will, from now onwards, be a symbol of this Government.

5.28 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: It seemed to me that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced this Bill he was almost enthusiastic about debasing the silver coinage still further into the new alloy coinage. To me it is rather a sad

moment, having seen the passing of the gold coinage. Then we saw reduction in the value of the silver coinage; now we see it passing altogether and the substitution of a cheap alloy coinage. In these days, we must approach the matter from a practical point of view, and we should all recognise that this silver coinage, so called, has been merely a token coinage for very many years. Some years ago, the British Government borrowed a certain amount of silver from America and, at a given time—we have not been told exactly when—that silver must be repaid in kind. I imagine that the Government have the opportunity either of paying back that silver out of our coinage, or by buying in the open market and repaying it in that way.
As we have been told, the price of silver has increased very substantially. I can imagine the holders of silver in America and other parts of the world carefully watching our position and anxiously looking to see whether we propose to purchase £20 million of silver with which to repay the debt, meanwhile stepping up the purchase price as time goes on. I think we should congratulate the Government on taking this step of removing the silver from our coinage and repaying it in kind. It is undoubtedly one very good thing which they have decided to do. I do not often agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I congratulate him upon taking this step. In conclusion, therefore, although in principle, I dislike the proposed change in the content of our coinage, I think that from a practical and commonsense point of view it is undoubtedly the right action at the present time.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I think most of the points which should be covered in an important Debate like this have already been covered, and I do not propose to detain the House for long. It seems to me that the case for this great and deplorable change has been made out, and we should concentrate our endeavours upon trying to persuade the Government to, make a new coinage which will take the place of our ancient and honourable coinage as something that is worthy of this country. I believe coinage has a most profound symbolic value and a psychological effect. I believe a great deal of extravagance, waste and a sub-


conscious tendency towards inflation can be traced to the sad days over 30 years ago, when the golden sovereign and half sovereign disappeared, and I believe that if we are now to fall into the same trap into which most Continental countries have fallen, of having a shoddy sort of coinage, it will debase the economic morality of each one of us.
I am sure the Chancellor will pay full attention to the weighty arguments that have been brought to bear in favour of a nickel coinage, and I only wish to underline those arguments. There are one or two particular points that I wish to make. From the Schedule to the Bill I see that we have finally said "goodbye" to the crown piece. I hope that decision will be reconsidered It has always struck me that the crown is a handsome piece of money. It gives great delight to children, and I do not see why we should not give delight to children, it is a dignified coin and it can be a most magnificent coin. Crown pieces have been the finest objects in anybody's collection. One thinks particularly of one produced under the Commonwealth, and some of the 18th century coins. In the Committee stage I shall try to press for the retention of the crown piece.
Then there is the question of design. I do not know whether it is the Chancellor's intention to make this an occasion for redesigning the British coinage. I hope it is. It is my conviction that this century has seen a sad decline in the standard of British coin design. One occasionally finds in one's pocket Victorian coins. Contrast with the later designs the style of designing of the sovereign's head in the 'seventies; consider the florin or even the pennies or halfpennies of the 'seventies. Take the obverse side of the coins. What miserable designs these half-crowns today are, compared with the finest specimens of the Victorian era or preceding reigns. This is a great opportunity for restoring the artistic dignity and the psychological and symbolical value of our coinage, and I hope that opportunity will be taken. In a way, this is a humiliating moment, when we sink to the level of so many bankrupt foreign nations, and have to abandon any pretence that our coinage is not debased. However, I think it is a sign of honest poverty, of money spent in a great cause. We may have to live at a cheaper rate

and wear cheaper and more homespun clothes, but let us wear them with dignity and let us see that they are well cut, and we shall not disgrace ourselves or our forebears.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: I hope I will be excused if I do not follow what appears now to be the established precedent of welcoming the Chancellor back from America. So far as I know, he has already started to go back there, and, in any case, I see no reason for treating him as a sort of Columbus in reverse. His journey cannot have been very dangerous and probably the only risk he ran was that of overstraining his digestion.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not a nice thing to welcome a man when he comes back?

Mr. Stanley: I have been for a holiday, too, but nobody welcomed me. Nobody said, "I am glad to see you back from Blackpool." It is just as dangerous to go to Blackpool as to America. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) that it is a pity that this Measure should be introduced in a spirit of levity, as if it did not matter at all. I do not believe that to be the case. I believe it is a matter of some concern that we should have had to take this step, although I also agree that the circumstances have justified the step being taken. If this easy way of "collaring" £50 million does not matter to anybody in this country, it is difficult to understand why no Chancellor of the Exchequer in recent times before the present one has thought of doing it. Sir Austen Chamberlain, of course, had to meet a different situation where the metal content was about the nominal value.
In the course of my time in Parliament a number of Chancellors of the Exchequer have been anxious to pick up an honest penny to help their Budgets whenever they could find one. I remember one described by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer as "a robber of hen roosts." If this method did not matter, I cannot imagine that any one of them would have passed over the opportunity. It does matter. It reduces very considerably our financial prestige. It is a token of our lowered standard of life, and, to some degree, it is also true that the more one's currency becomes a token currency the less people are concerned about econo-


mising it. I agree that this has got to be done. We are faced with this contract to repay this large sum in silver, and, of course, it would be the worst economy to go out in the markets of the world at a time when silver is in keen demand, and buy up silver in order to repay America. Therefore, we on this side of the House do not challenge the Second Reading of this Bill.
I am afraid that I cannot share the optimistic feelings of the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon) who hopes that he will get a reassurance from the Financial Secretary that this abandonment of silver will be temporary. I cannot see any Chancellor of the Exchequer coming down to this House in the future and saying, "I have got a surplus for this year of £50 million. I shall not spend it in reducing Income Tax; I am going to spend it all in restoring the silver currency." I am afraid that when we say "Goodbye" to silver with this Bill, we are probably saying "Goodbye" to it so far as the lives of any of us here are concerned. The hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich made a most interesting and amusing speech, but beneath his historical tales and his amusing quips there lay a very deep lesson for the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that in the old days the goodness or badness of kings was largely determined by whether or not they debased the currency.
The same effect as bad kings of old produced upon the people of this country by debasing the currency can still be produced today by bad Chancellors of the Exchequer who reduce the value of our money. It may not matter so much today, merely to put more nickel into a shilling, as it did in the times to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, but exactly the same poverty and distress is caused today when the shilling is reduced in value. If we are to judge Chancellors of the Exchequer by that same test which the hon. and gallant Gentleman applied to kings in the past, I shall put the present Chancellor of the Exchequer definitely among those who in "1066 and all that" would be classed as "bad" kings. I think he is just about on a parallel with King John; not yet perhaps quite in the class of Henry VIII, but working that way.

Mr. Kirkwood: What is the difference?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman must read English history and he will see. The main difference between the two was that King John had too many lampreys and King Henry VIII too many wives.

Mr. Kirkwood: I only wanted to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of telling the House all about it.

Mr. Stanley: I would certainly advise the right hon. Gentleman when next he goes out to dinner to be very careful of lampreys: oysters, yes certainly; winkles, possibly, but lampreys, no.
The main point on this Bill is not the fact, which we all admit with whatever degree of regretfulness, that the coinage has got to be changed, but what coin is to be substituted for it. I do not propose to discuss that today, because it is obviously a matter which should be raised, and which we shall raise, in Committee. I make only this one appeal. I do hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary will not meet us when we discuss this in Committee in the sort of spirit that one phrase in the Chancellor's speech today led me to fear; that is, when he described the talk about 100 per cent. nickel currency as coming entirely from the Mond Nickel Company or their mouthpieces. I thought it a little ungenerous, in view of the fact that the principal letter written in the whole of that correspondence has in fact come from the Agent General for the Province of Ontario. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not try to make prejudices of that kind. There is no party question in this at all. We are all anxious, if possible, to get the best possible currency.

Mr. Kirkwood: My right hon. Friend never intended to put it in the way the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

Mr. Stanley: Then why did he have to say it? If he did not mean it, why was it necessary to bring in the Mond Nickel Company at all? Cannot we discuss, without that kind of prejudice, the simple fact of whether a currency which is likely to be with us all our lives is better made of 100 per cent. nickel or of this particular alloy which is now suggested? I hope that on Friday we shall be able to discuss this not unimportant question in that spirit, and that the Government will keep their minds open to the appeals which have come from all sides of the House.

5.45 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I think all of us will agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) that the Bill which we are discussing is not really a party issue at all. I think I can go farther, and say that all hon. Members in every quarter of the House—and I am positive the same goes for the general public outside—regret the proposal that from now on our coinage should cease to have any silver content. We are all proud of our coinage; I think we have every right to be proud of it, and of the craftsmen who make such splendid coins—token coins as they are. They are, I am positive, the envy of many people in other parts of the world. Underlying many of the speeches that have been made this afternoon is the assumption that the new coinage will be something worse than the silver coins to which we have been accustomed. Of course, one enters the realms of prophecy here, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends opposite, as well as my hon. Friends on this side of the House, that, regrettable though this change is, it will be the endeavour of the Royal Mint to see that the new coins which are issued will be such that we can continue to be proud of them.
I have been asked if the Government will keep an open mind as to the metal to be used. I readily give this assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend. I think by general consent we have narrowed the material down to either cupro-nickel, an alloy of 75 per cent. copper and 25 per cent. nickel, or pure nickel. As the House will have noticed, in the Bill we have kept that quite open; although it is the present intention—for reasons which I will give in a moment—to make the new coinage of cupro-nickel, it will still be possible at some future date for the coinage, if the House so desires, to be made entirely of nickel. My right hon. Friend and the Government do not close their minds to the suggestion that we should go over to nickel entirely, should that be desirable. The reason why we cannot do it immediately—and we very much regret it, if nickel is the better material—is that the Royal Mint cannot cope with the work of making coins entirely of nickel at the present time. It would need very special

machinery. Although it is true that we could get the nickel manufactured and the discs cut outside, it is felt that this work should, if possible, be done inside the Mint. In addition, apart from the fact that we have not the necessary cutting machinery, new dies would need to be cut. I am not a technician, but I am told new dies would be necessary because the image would have to be cut lower than with the material we are going to use.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton); there is no analogy between what the late Sir Austen Chamberlain did in 1920 and what we propose to do now. Times were different then, and the main factor guiding him was that the intrinsic value was greater than the face value of the coin, and with a token coin that always must be very undesirable. Nevertheless, there are factors today which make this change essential. It is worth while remembering the late Sir Austen Chamberlain's action because, during the time that has elapsed since then, it is clear very little harm has been done. In passing perhaps I might answer the question why we were going back so far as the Maundy money is concerned to the old 925 ounces of fineness. The change made by the late Sir Austen Chamberlain was to give the Maundy money the same content as the new silver coins, as the easiest thing to do. Now that silver is to disappear from the coins altogether, we propose for sentimental reason—to which, I think, none of us object—to continue the manufacture of Maundy money, but of its original fineness. We on this side of the House are great believers in tradition and the keeping of old customs. It is just as well that we should go back to the original arrangement. It will not cost the nation very much. I am told the annual cost is something like £46 5s.
He also said that the coinage should have a good appearance, be difficult to counterfeit, and be hygienic. That, I think, answers the hon. Gentleman who spoke later from one of the Back Benches opposite, who seemed to suggest we ought to have paper money. One of the objections to paper money, one of the alternatives that was thought of, is that, generally, paper money for small denominations is a nuisance, unhygienic and undesirable. I may add, it is generally expensive. It costs little


to print the notes, but they constantly have to be changed, so that they do become expensive. In addition, they mean a great deal more work—for people who pay wages; also cashiers in banks can weigh money more easily than count notes. So, considered from every point of view, we rejected the proposition that we should make notes of small denominations, and that, I think, meets with the general approval of the House.
Something has been said by more than one speaker to the effect that cupro-nickel coins will be easy to counterfeit. Again—I speak, of course, not as one who knows, but as one who has gathered his knowledge from the experts—I understand that the new cupro-nickel will be more difficult to counterfeit than the present silver coinage. A good deal has been said about the ease with which the material can be melted down, but, as a matter of fact, I gather that the melting point of the new material is something like 1,350 degrees centigrade, whereas the melting point of the silver used in our silver coins is 200 degrees less. So that, if that is a valid point, cupro-nickel is going to be more safe from the counterfeiter than our present silver token coinage.
The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) suggested, as also does a letter which has been referred to, and which appeared today in "The Times," that one advantage about nickel is that a magnet can attract it. I believe this is perfectly true, and if we do come to nickel I imagine that all of us will carry magnets about with us on our watch chains to be quite sure that we are being given no counterfeit coins. But, to be quite serious, it is obvious that the risk of having counterfeit coins in wide circulation is very remote, and if it is the fact that a magnet will attract nickel, that, in itself, as I say, is no sufficient reason why we should adopt nickel.
One of my predecessors in my present office, who sits for the City of London, said that when we came to the Committee stage his party would have objections to offer to the proposal in Clause 3, to change the composition of the coin without reference to Parliament. Quite frankly, the House cannot have it both ways. The suggestion now is that we should not bind ourselves to cupro-nickel, but that, at

some time to come, we should go over to pure nickel. Therefore, we must take powers in the Bill, so that, if some other metal is discovered—or nickel is found to be the best way—we may have powers to change over. After all, these are purely technical changes. It is only a question of changing one base metal for another; and, providing that the base metal chosen is better than the old, and that Parliament is informed, surely nothing else matters. Even under the existing law it is permissible to vary the composition of metal coins other than silver, and, of course, now that we are getting rid of silver altogether, it is only right and proper that the variation, which is allowed under the existing law with base metals, should be continued.
We had a very humorous speech, as always, from my hon. Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith). He made a point—I think he did it with his tongue in his cheek—that this Bill should include increased penalties against counterfeiters and forgers. It does not need me, perhaps, to tell him that this is not the place to tighten up the criminal law, and I say that all the more certainly and easily because I am sure that he knows it as well as I do, and that he only brought the point into his speech in order to hang a homily to the other side upon it. But, certainly, this is not the Bill to do a thing of that kind. Its object is a very simple one, as my right hon. Friend explained, and that is, to change over our token coinage from silver to an alloy of nickel and copper.
The hon. Member for Torquay was labouring under a misapprehension so far as the United States of America are concerned. It is true, as my right hon. Friend said, that we have to repay 88 million ounces of silver to the United States within the next five years or so. But the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson), I think it was, suggested that we should pay in dollars rather than in silver, and that that was one way of obviating the change now suggested. But he and the hon. Member for Torquay must have forgotten that we have undertaken to repay this bar for bar in silver. It is one of our obligations under the Lend-Lease arrangements. As we have at some time to start to repay, there is no reason why we should not begin to make arrangements now, particularly as it will


take some little time for the coinage to be made and put into circulation, and for us to get a steady stream of the old coinage coming in, which can be melted down and used. We could, it we would, leave the repayment of the whole 88 million ounces to the end of the five years, but now is an excellent time for making the change. We have this money to repay in silver, and it is our view—and I hope it is shared by the House—that the sooner we make arrangements for repaying it the better.

Mr. C. Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me. I was under no misapprehension at all of any sort or kind. I am grateful also for his explaining part of what I wanted to know. He has told us there is no need to repay this until the end of five years. I am not in the least against him for beginning now, but what I want to know is whether America is asking for present repayment, and if that is the reason for preparing to pay now. As to the fact that we have to pay in silver, is there any pressure from America? Do they want payment now, or could we leave it for two or three years?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am very glad to be able to put the hon. Gentleman right on that matter. The United States are not pressing us in any way. We do know that this obligation exists. There was an understanding that it should be repaid in the course of the next five years or thereabouts, and this was one of the arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend as a reason for making an early start. Obviously the alternative is to go into the market and buy silver. That would mean that its present high price, might go even higher. In addition we should be competing with industries which now, more than ever, are using silver in processes which are useful and necessary to the national life, and that we do not wish to do. Therefore, for these reasons, which I think are commonsense, this should be done now, though there is, I should like to repeat, no pressure whatever on the part of the United States for this money to be repaid straight away. The hon. Member for Torquay ventured to think that, with the new token coinage, he and others like him would be robbed of a sense of security when they had money in their pockets. I will not follow

up that argument, which does not hold water for a moment. I think the right hon. Gentleman who ended the Debate for the other side made much the same point when he indicated, perhaps half by implication, that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, like a king who debased the coinage, was a bad Chancellor.

Mr. Stanley: I said he was a bad Chancellor of the Exchequer because he is lowering the whole value of money, which is the modern form of debasing the currency, which bad kings of old used to do.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If I may quite briefly answer those two points together—the point was made in other words by the hon. Member for Torquay—it crossed my mind, and it must have crossed the minds of other hon. Members on this side, to wonder whether he feels the same when he has a £5 note in his pocket, because the £5 note is intrinsically even more worthless than the token coins which he has in his pocket; furthermore the latter are only legal tender up to 40s. and no more. Therefore, so far as the question of value and the security of individuals is concerned, the situation will be just the same when we get the new token coinage as it is now. That, I think, answers the right hon. Gentleman who wound up the Debate. It is unfair, and in my view it is certainly untrue, to suggest that this change in the token coinage of this country in some way—quite how was not explained—lowers the value of our money. That is quite untrue. The value of money lies in what it will buy—

Mr. Stanley: rose—

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I took the right hon. Gentleman's words down: he said that a bad Chancellor, like a bad king, was one who would reduce the value of our money, and when I interrupted—

Mr. Stanley: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to get me wrong. I am not talking about what the Chancellor is doing today, but about what he has been doing for the last year. That is what has been reducing the value of money.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): If so, of course, that would be quite out of Order.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon) suggested that the Chancellor


may some day have it in his heart to restore silver coinage, purely on sentimental grounds, and I think that what he said finds an echo in the hearts of most of us. We rather like silver. The word itself is a lovely word, and we like to think that our token coinage does contain silver. What will happen in the future, of course, is not for me to forecast, but again I think the right hon. Gentleman who concluded the Debate was a little wrong when he suggested that its reintroduction would cost any Chancellor £50,000,000. Of course, it would not cost the Chancellor £50,000,000 all at once. It might in the long run, but the operation would take place gradually and the alteration would come into force over some long period of time. What is quite clear is that the new coinage, whatever it is made of, will have the same weight, and much the same appearance as the coins we now use, and we hope that, as in Ireland, the new coinage will run smoothly side by side with the old for some years, until the present silver coinage is withdrawn.
That answers another hon. Gentleman who thought that the time was opportune for changing the designs on the coins—I think it was the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson). Of course, it is possible to improve the designs on our coins, but it was felt that this was neither the time nor the place to do it. For one thing, it would mean that people who are on other work would have to be taken off to elaborate the designs, also, if we are to change the metal used in our coinage, it is perhaps as well to keep the apperance of the coin as it is now, and then the change over does not appear so drastic to the individual. People will not become frightened, as they might—quite wrongly—be frightened by some of the speeches made on the other side.

Mr. Nicholson: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously think that a competition for new designs of coins would really affect the labour market? I would point out that the coins cannot be quite the same size; they will be slightly different if they are the same weight, because the specific gravity of the metal will be slightly different. It is a golden opportunity to have a really beautiful coinage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Golden?"] Well, a cupro-nickel opportunity, and the Chancellor would go down in history as a sort of Pericles.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not want to labour that point; we have other business tonight, and I do not desire to keep the House any longer on this matter. It is the desire of my right hon. Friend that this change over should be made smoothly, and that the new coinage which takes the place of the present silver token coinage should be worthy of this country in every respect. He desires that the change should be made with the least possible upset, and for that reason perhaps now is not the time to embark upon either new denominations or new designs. We hope that the new coinage will wear well, and I can give the House my right hon. Friend's assurance that, if we find that some of the worst fears of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are realised, and the coinage begins to look dirty and frayed and unworthy of a great nation, he will be the first to see what changes can be made to improve it—he is taking powers in the Bill so to do—so that the coinage shall continue to be, as it has been in the past, one of the glories of this nation.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask one question? As the silver is to be reduced very considerably, can we be assured that the silver threepenny piece will be restored in the usual numbers, instead of the hideous copper coin which took its place?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We are not proposing to make any more silver coins.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Well, cupro-nickel?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The general feeling is that the twelve-sided threepenny piece is a boon and a blessing to men. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] That is a matter which could perhaps be raised, if hon. Members desired to raise it, in Committee. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we have no intention of manufacturing threepenny bits in silver, as he suggests, and it may be a long time before cupro-nickel threepenny pieces are made, because of certain difficulties owing to the size of the coin. That, however, as I say, is a matter which we might perhaps leave until the Committee stage, when it might be argued at greater length.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Friday.—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

Orders of the Day — COINAGE [MONEY]

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for a coinage other than silver to be legal tender for payments up to forty shillings, and to confer further powers as to the purchase of metal for coinage, it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be necessary for the purchase of any metal required for supplies of coins for the public service, and the payment into the Exchequer of sums received for coin produced from metal so purchased."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Dalton.]

Resolution to be reported upon Friday.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

6.12 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The main purpose of Public Works Loan Bills is to authorise a maximum sum of money which may be advanced to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the purpose of making advances normally to local authorities, until the next Bill is passed. As the House will probably remember, it is only six months ago since we passed the previous Act. That Act authorised the issue of money up to £150 million, and we hoped then it would suffice until the early part of next year, but certain developments have since taken place which have necessitated our coming to the House again. It is an essential part of the procedure for implementing the Local Authorities Act, 1945, that the Commissioners should give their approval, in principle, to proposed loans at a stage when such advances are put to the sanctioning Departments. As the House will appreciate, this is normally a good many months ahead of the time when the money is actually required as a cash advance by the local authority concerned.
Doubts were recently raised as to whether the Commissioners were entitled to enter into undertakings for advances in this way, if such undertakings would cause them to exceed the limits for actual advances laid down by the current Public Works Loan Act, unless Parliament had agreed to the advance. The matter was referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, who have advised us that it is not lawful for the Commissioners to commit themselves to make a loan at some future date in excess of the amount placed at their disposal by the current Act, although they can enter into a provisional commitment, on condition that the money will be advanced only if Parliament agrees to it. We felt that a proviso like this was not fair to local authorities. It is an unsatisfactory method, and it is unfair to local authorities who naturally want to know definitely where they stand. The position has therefore been reviewed, and in the light of the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, it has been decided to introduce this Bill. The reason for introducing it now is that if the views expressed by the Law Officers are accepted, the present amount of £150 million is not likely to last us very long. The Commissioners have advanced something like £33 million in cash, have made unconditional commitments to the extent of another £100 million, which the Law Officers of the Crown say is as good as if the cash had been advanced, and in addition have made provisional commitments, subject to Parliamentary sanction, for a further £22 million.
As the House will see, the £150 million is more than exhausted. The matter is therefore one of urgency. We have exhausted the powers conferred by the current Act, and it is essential now that we ask the House to grant a larger sum so that the Commissioners can continue their work. The Bill is a very simple and straightforward Measure. It has only three operative clauses. Clause I proposes a limitation of £250 million to be laid down for advances by the Commissioners before the next Act. It has been very difficult to estimate what sum we should put in the Bill. As I have indicated already, local authorities are coming forward and wanting money for all sorts of purposes, especially for housing. We believe that the £250 million will keep the Commissioners going for some time.
I admit that Clause 2 is an innovation. It has been put in as a result of the opinion recently given by the Law Officers of the Crown. That clause is designed to reconcile the statutory provisions with the procedure of administering the 1945 Act. Under that clause the Commissioners are empowered to enter into a commitment, provided their commitment to advance, when added to the actual cash advances which they have made, does not exceed £500 million. Under the present Act, which will lapse when this Bill is passed, the Commissioners have already entered into commitments, either definitely or for contingent amounts, up to about £130 million. I think that the House will agree that the figures which we have put into the Bill are reasonable.
Clause 3 is designed to remove an anomaly. In 1935 the general provisions as to the minimum rates of interest which could be charged for an advance were abolished, except in so far as housing associations and analogous bodies were concerned. We have taken the opportunity, in this Bill, to bring the law up to date, and to put all bodies which borrow in this way on the same footing. We think it is desirable in view of the lower interest rates that are now being charged, and that it is only fair to those concerned
It is a simple and, I hope, a non-controversial Measure, and I trust that the House will be willing to give it a Second Reading without a great deal of trouble or Debate. We shall be coming back to the Bill on Friday but, meanwhile, I assure the House that we have gone into the matter with the utmost care. The Bill is an urgent one, because local authorities, whatever their political complexion, are coming to the Treasury for advances, and we are anxious, in these times of rehabilitation, to be able to meet them. The Bill will help us to do so for some months to come.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: This Bill, as the Financial Secretary has just said, is non-contentious but, at the same time, there are one or two criticisms which I feel bound to make about it. In peacetime a Public Works Loans Bill was an annual feature of Parliamentary procedure. It placed certain sums of money at the disposal of the Public Works Loans Commissioners to enable them to make

advances to local authorities and to certain other bodies, such as housing associations, and the like. During the war, of course, there was very little lending of money by the Public Works Loans Commissioners, but in 1945 I was associated, as Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we passed through Parliament the Local Authorities Loans Act, which compels local authorities to borrow all their moneys virtually from the Public Works Loans Board.
Previously, the larger authorities went into the open market in the City, and carried through their issues in the same way as public companies and other undertakings. It was normally only the smaller authorities which approached the Public Works Loans Board. Since the Act of 1945, however, all local authority borrowing has been canalised through the channel of the Public Works Loans Board. That being the position, the Government introduced, in March last, a Bill to enable £150 million to be advanced from the Consolidated Fund and placed at the disposal of the Public Works Loans Commissioners. Introducing that Bill, the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary said:
We are now likely to find that the annual Bill will be necessary again.
That is, reverting to the prewar practice.
The present Bill proposes a limit of £150 million…. It is difficult to estimate the rate at which local authorities will call on the Government during the coming year, but it is felt by us that £150 million should be adequate.
Then the hon. Gentleman went on to guard himself by the statement:
But if that amount is not enough we shall have to come to the House and ask for an additional sum."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1946; Vol. 419, c. 2298.]
It is, therefore, a little surprising that within six months of that Bill becoming law the hon. Gentleman should now come to the House and tell us that the whole of the £150 million has either been advanced or has already been promised, and should ask us to enable the Commissioners to enter into commitments totalling another £500 million. If Members will look at Clause 2 of the Bill, they will see that at any one time the aggregate of the commitments of the Commissioners, plus the actual advances which they shall have made, shall not exceed £500 million.


For a Government which is supposed to be the acme of perfection so far as planning is concerned, it is very surprising that they should have estimated the requirements of local authorities at £150 million in March of this year, and should now have to rush a Bill through the House to enable the Public Works Loans Commissioners to advance or to promise a further £500 million.
I really think that this matter requires some more explanation than the hon. Gentleman has given, because the only phrase in his speech which in any way accounted for the enormous increase in the demands on the Public Works Loans Commissioners was that certain developments had occurred. The House is entitled to know, first, how this miscalculation came to be made last March, and, second, upon what objects and for what purposes are these very large sums now to be placed at the disposal of the Public Works Loans Commissioners? I take it that this money is required in the main for housing purposes, but surely the hon. Gentleman must have some particulars of the estimated requirements for different purposes. Are there large sums included here, for example, for the purpose of buildings for education, for new roads, police purposes, and other matters of that kind? How does it come about that £150 million was the estimated figure in March of this year for 12 months, and that now something like four times that figure seems to be likely to be actually required? We on this side of the House will offer no objection to putting this money at the disposal of the Public Works Loans Commissioners. They must have all the money they need, especially for housing purposes, but is it a fact that housing developments are going on more speedily now than the Government anticipated when they introduced their Bill last March, with a limit of £150 million?
What has happened to upset the Government's plan, and to result in a far larger sum being required than they originally estimated? I should further like to ask how long this new sum of £500 million is intended to last. What is the estimated period over which this £500 million will meet the requirements of the Public Works Loans Commissioners? Are we to have another Bill next March, or is this sum intended to last for 12 months from the present time? So far as we are

concerned, the hon. Gentleman may by ail means speak again on this Bill because he really ought to give us a little more information as to why this greatly increased sum is now being required.
A doubt was expressed as to whether under the new dispensation, where all the moneys borrowed by local authorities have to come from the Public Works Loan Board, the Board could say to a local authority, "We will promise to advance you the money in three months, six months, or a year's time, when you require it." Clause 2 makes it clear that they can enter into commitments for the future. That seems to be a natural corollary to compelling local authorities to borrow only through the Public Works Loan Board, if you tell them that they must go to only one source for their money, and they have not the alternative of going to the City and raising their money in the ordinary way. It seems quite reasonable that the Board should have power, if it did not have the power before, to say to the local authority, "We will undertake to lend you this money in six months or a year's time." So far as the legal point covered by Clause 2 is concerned, that Clause has our wholehearted approval.
In regard to Clause 3, I fully endorse all that the hon. Gentleman has said about it. When the Local Authorities Loans Act was going through Parliament, 3⅛ per cent. was the lowest rate of interest at which local authorities could borrow for long-term housing purposes. It was, in fact, the rate of interest contemplated in that Bill. Now, an announcement has been made that local authorities will be able to get money at, I think, 2½ per cent. for long-term projects of that character. It is perfectly clear that the same benefit of the low rate of interest can be extended to housing associations as is extended to local authorities, and, therefore, Clause 3 of the Bill will, I think, be welcomed in all quarters of the House.
With these comments, I am prepared to leave the Bill, but, either today or on the Committee stage, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us some explanation of how this miscalculation came to be made last March, and explain the main purposes for which the money is now required, and for how long the money which we are placing at the disposing of the Public Works Loan Board is to last be-


fore the hon. Gentleman comes to the House for some further requirement.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Tolley: I support the Bill because I realise that the local authorities have, at the present time, to enter into long-term planning. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) paid, I think, rather overdue concern to the fact that in March £150 million was suggested as the sum to meet requirements spread over 12 months. It must be obvious to all of us that in March of last year local authorities had not been able, in the short time since the war ended, to get down to intensive planning. For six years, the local authorities had been prevented from entering into any contract in the way of sewage disposal, new water undertakings, etc. They were held up, and now any local authority which is progressive realises that the time has come, and the opportunity is there, to plan ahead. They will be restricted very much, because their financial commitments will be great, unless they are in the happy position of the Government saying, "Here you are, plan your schemes, and, even in long-term planning, we will be able to guarantee the money you require." The sum of £500 million can soon be absorbed.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned housing. We are all happy in the knowledge that local authorities will be able to develop their housing programmes in more rapid degree, and that under this Bill their schemes will not be handicapped through lack of finance. I think that we can view with satisfaction that the Government desire to give all the financial assistance possible to local authorities to plan ahead and get on with their schemes, and for that reason they have introduced this Bill. As one associated for many years with a local authority, I welcome the fact that, by the changed procedure, local authorities can go to one centralised head to get all the loans they require. The old-fashioned methods of having to go into the City to raise loans afforded no benefit to the local authorities, and, in many cases, they were seriously handicapped. I hope that the House will give unanimous approval to this Measure, because I know that it will be generally welcomed, and enable local authorities to plan ahead and get on with their various duties.

6.35 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: There is one thing which I wish to say, particularly in view of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Tolley). We seem to be getting into an atmosphere in which we are agreeable to dispose of the taxpayers' money in very large quantities, for apparently very vague and nebulous purposes, in a very brief space of time, and with very little explanation from the Treasury. I think that it would be as well if we pressed for a little more information from the Financial Secretary as to what exactly are the causes requiring this very large increase in the estimate.
In the constituency which I have the honour to represent, there are a considerable number of local authorities, and one of these, the largest concerned, has never found it necessary to borrow any money. It has financed its way as it went along. It is one of the most up-to-date and efficient organisations in the country. It has, of course, achieved that result by economy and planning.
Economy, I know, is considered rather a novelty nowadays, but older organisations, run efficiently, have only succeeded in being efficient because they have been well planned. If the Treasury would require more local authorities to plan a little further forward, and encourage them towards that end, I think that we would have greater economy. It is all very well, from the Government's point of view, to talk about these large sums of money, but it is the persons that we on these benches represent who have to find the money. As I pointed out in connection with the previous Measure when it was under discussion, it is by no means certain that because the Public Works Loan Board is going to produce a lower rate of interest, and a greater system of economy for local authorities in their borrowing, it is better than the system which was previously in operation, whereby they could either go to the Public Works Loan Board or competitively to the open market in the City. I still hold that opinion, and I think that the principle is bad. As my right hon. Friend who has spoken in this Debate may bear in mind, I opposed the Government on a previous occasion. I am still an unconvinced heretic as to the merits of this particular


provision. I feel that if local authorities are being forced into one channel for borrowing purposes, and that the money is being raised in such vast quantities as it has to be raised from the taxpayers in one form or another, and under one system or another, we should have further information and further explanation as to the way in which, and the reasons for which, the Government have so singularly failed to estimate correctly their requirements for a period of six months.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If I may speak again by leave of the House, I will answer briefly one or two of the points that have been made, particularly from the Benches opposite. I cannot help thinking that the hon. and gallant Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks) is under a misapprehension as to what we are trying to do. We are not suggesting in this Bill that money should be taken from the taxpayers; the money will be borrowed by the Government for the municipalities, instead of by the municipalities themselves. That provision was made under the 1945 Act. I was not in the Government then, but I wholeheartedly agree with what was done, because it prevents municipalities from competing in the market against one another and also against the Government. It puts under one hat as it were in an orderly way, the assistance granted by way of loans to local authorities throughout the country. The Public Works Loan Commissioners, in association with the Department concerned, do not fling this money about in a haphazard way to local authorities. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman saw the way in which some of these projects which are brought by local authorities to the Treasury and the Departments are vetted, he would realise that money is not being squandered in the way he imagines.
I will try to answer the points that were put to me by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). He is entitled to an answer, and it may assist when we come to the Committee stage if I attempt to give an answer now. The development I mentioned and to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is the discovery by the Law Officers that the procedure which has been followed up to now could not be said to be strictly legal, and that if the Public Works Loan Commissioners promised money, although the money would

not be paid over for perhaps 18 months, to the local authority concerned they were nevertheless committed to advance the money and if this went beyond the limits which Parliament had laid down, their act was illegal. That being the position, it put an entirely new complexion on the whole thing, and affected the amount which the House granted last March. At that time, we asked for £150 million, although we did indicate at the time that we were working largely in the dark in naming that figure. As I have indicated, the Public Works Loan Commissioners have used only £33 million in actual cash advances, so that if this difficulty over the procedure had not been discovered, we would not have had to come to the House now in order to regularise the position.
The point is that the Commissioners have committed themselves to lend at some future time—how soon we do not know; some of the money may be asked for quite soon, and much of the rest may not be needed for 18 months—at least another £100 million. That being so, in the light of this opinion by the law officers it is necessary to regularise the position. That is why we have put the facts before the House, and that is why we ask, in the Bill, that until the next Bill is introduced—I do not know who will be at this Box then—the Public Works Loan Commissioners should be allowed to make cash advances up to £250 million and promises up to another £250 million. We ask for that sum because this Fund is now the only channel through which these authorities can borrow, and they are now, quite properly, beginning to come in increasing numbers for their housing schemes, and so on.
The right hon. Gentleman wanted to know whether there were other things which we had not disclosed for which the money is wanted. The authorities come to the Departments, they put their case before the Departments, and what they want is either agreed to, turned down, or modified. They ask for money for a variety of schemes. What those schemes may be it is impossible for me to say, but as far as I know, the vast majority of them will come to the Government for money to assist them to build houses. Later on, I have no doubt some of them will be coming for assistance for the provision of schools, but at the moment, their chief preoccupation is housing. It is for these reasons that we ask the House


to agree to the Second Reading of the Bill. When we come to the Committee stage there will doubtless be criticisms of individual Clauses, but nevertheless we believe that the general proposals we made in the Bill are reasonable and we hope commend themselves to the House.

Mr. Peake: Could the Financial Secretary say, first, that he adheres to his original estimate of £150 million as regards the amount that will be issued during the 12 months from last March, and secondly, will he give some indication of how long a period is intended to be covered, by the sums to be granted now?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: To answer the second point first, it is difficult for me to give a categorical reply. I wish I could do so. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, since he once occupied the office of Financial Secretary, it is very difficult to make an estimate with any degree of accuracy in a situation such as that which now faces us. The provision of housing, schools and hospitals, and the changes to which not only this Government but preceding Governments committed themselves, will undoubtedly increase as materials become available and manpower returns from the Forces. It is therefore difficult to say how long the amount for which we now ask will last, but my guess—I think it a not unreasonable one—is that the amount now asked for should last at any rate until this time next year. The other Act of course stops dead immediately this Bill becomes law. Therefore, any commitments agreed to under the old Act will have to be carried on the new £250 million, plus £250 million, making £500 million in all of the present Bill. It is hoped that we shall not have to come to the House with another Bill of the same kind for another year.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: I wish to say a few words in support of the Bill. I cannot understand the apprehension expressed from the benches opposite, either with regard to the amount involved, or the length of time it is intended to cover. I should have thought that any progress in the way of local municipal development in terms of housing, education, and the rest of the social services, ought to be encouraged. As the Financial Secretary so clearly told

us, with the return of men from the Forces, with the setting up of staffs and the building up of reconstruction committees, it was quite impossible, as early as March of this year, to get anything like a guide as to the sum of money that would be involved, and it is only now, as I can say from my knowledge of the local authorities in my area, that we can be said to be getting down to some of the long-term plans.
I think it is reasonable that local authorities who are unable to embark immediately upon schemes involving the expenditure of this money should, while the opportunity for borrowing money at reasonable rates of interest is available, lay out their budgets on long-term lines. In the matter of education for example, there has to be a complete rebuilding. I am encouraged to think that the Government, in fulfilment of their policy and principle of making cheap money available to local authorities, especially the poorer ones, are proceeding with this Measure. I can think of no better investment than to encourage our poorer local authorities to replan their areas and give the people who richly deserve so many amenities some of the things we have spoken of for so long and of which they have been long deprived. I believe the Loans Bill of 1945, in centralising the pool in which money should be available, was a good Measure. I know it was welcomed by the poorer authorities who had to compete, very often at a great disadvantage, with the better off authorities, and I hope that we shall, in the course of time, spend not only this £500 million which we are discussing today but many more, because there seems to me to be no finer outlet for the capital resources of this country.

6.51 p.m.

Sir William Darling: This is a matter which concerns local authorities and local government, and I should like to express my disagreement with the attitude of the Government. I believe that easy finance is bad finance. It is not a good thing to encourage people to borrow money and it is not a desirable thing to encourage local authorities to indulge in expenditure for which they perhaps have doubtful justification This picture of a centralised finance from the great financial policy of the existing Government is not one which presents any


ready appeal to me. I happen to be a member of a local authority which could go to the Stock Exchange, or to the public at any time and get all the money it wanted for all purposes, and that authority is now running a great capital city at probably the lowest rate burden in the United Kingdom, 8s. 2d in the £. Under the present device there is no guarantee that the money will be spent in a wise fashion and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for striking the note of the negative.
Much is said against the Stock Exchange, but what is the Stock Exchange? It is a court where persons can take the commodity they have to sell and have it assessed at its proper value. If a local authority is extravagant and incompetent in its management it gets a very chilly reception if it goes to the Stock Exchange, and has to pay six, seven or eight per cent. for its money. If it is a prudently managed local authority it gets its money for three per cent., two and a half per cent., or even less. This device which I agree His Majesty's Government have inherited from their predecessors, is a device to make doubtful finance easy. It is a device to place money in the hands of people who believe in easy come and easy go, but no doubt this House will approve the Measure because its grandiloquent manner makes that almost certain. Two hundred and fifty million, 500 million, even 1,000 million—these are the figures which delight His Majesty's Government because they are, apart from the first digit, all round O's and to that extent mean either nothing or much. I belong to the old fashioned school of finance which believes that there cannot be any cheap money. So called cheap money is bogus money. The price of money today is not 2½ per cent. at all; the real price in a free market is a good deal more, but owing to devices and manipulations it appears otherwise. This kind of Measure is placed before the House but it cannot be put through without one or two voices being raised against it.
The centralised planning in Clause 3 is a device, I repeat, to facilitate borrowing by persons who would not otherwise have borrowed and who are only borrowing because the facilities are made easily and readily available to them. Money should not at any time be easily come by; it should be worked hard for and planned

hard for, not raised by inflationary devices and centralised methods of this kind. I am against any policy which makes it simpler. I detect in Clause 3, too, something which perhaps the Financial Secretary or some other hon. Gentleman opposite can elucidate. It is the repeal of the provision as to the minimum rate of interest on borrowing. All restriction is removed in this matter and while I have no doubt that it is thought hopefully that in the future 3⅛ per cent. and not 2½ per cent. will be the price, when this Clause is passed there is no guarantee that that will be so. If all restriction is removed I take it that it may be two and a half per cent. or one per cent., or that the money may even be loaned for nothing. On the other hand, it might be lent at five per cent., six per cent., or even seven or eight per cent., and I personally should prefer to see some statement as to what is the price at which money may be borrowed. I am conscious of the fact that these are probably exceptional views but they represent the reflection of my personal and public experience that prudence, carefulness and thrift in the management of public money are a public duty and I see no signs of that public duty in this Measure.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Friday.—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (EIRE VOLUNTEERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

6.56 p.m.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is an attempt to deal with a situation which has arisen out of the war. Every person except a regular officer who serves in His Majesty's Forces raised in the United Kingdom is given on his discharge from those Forces a credit of contributions under the unemployment insurance scheme of this country which enables him to receive unemployment benefit if he subsequently becomes unemployed. That benefit is only payable if he is in the United Kingdom and while he is absent from this


country the credit is of no use to him. The Eire volunteer is in that position. Numbers of these volunteers joined up straight from their home in Eire, they have no home they can call their own in Great Britain, and it is only natural and right that on discharge and demobilisation they should want to return to Eire. But the Eire volunteer who returns home is likely to encounter difficulty in obtaining civilian employment because he will enjoy no special protection in finding work or in regaining his previous employment such as is given in the United Kingdom by the Disabled Persons Employment Act and the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act. He may be at a disadvantage in this respect compared with men discharged from the Eire Defence Forces to whom the Eire Government have, naturally, promised preference. Eire insurance contributions will not have been paid for him while serving in His Majesty's Forces, and he is of course excluded from the special benefits of the Eire Unemployment Insurance Act which are enjoyed by those who serve in the Eire Defence Forces. He can thus suffer the worst of both of these insurance worlds because he will not be able to derive advantage from the special rights conferred upon ex-Servicemen in the United Kingdom and he will get no advantages if he returns to Eire.
Perhaps the best way of dealing with this problem would be, were it possible, to have a reciprocal arrangement, and indeed ever since 1923 attempts have been made to arrange such reciprocity with Eire in regard to unemployment insurance. They have always broken down because we have never been able to arrive at satisfactory financial arrangements and in recent years there has been more difficulty over the difference between benefits, particularly dependants benefits, paid in Eire and this country. However, it is hoped that under the wider powers which we have under the new National Insurance Act it may be possible to set up a reciprocal scheme between Eire and this country, and indeed I am glad to be able to state that discussions to that end are in contemplation. A suitable scheme will not be easy to arrive at for the reasons I have already indicated, but we enter these discussions with the hope that we shall be able to arrive at an early agreement on this subject. That is for the

future. It is impossible to arrive at final agreement without a great deal of further negotiation and discussion.
Meanwhile, I think it is a matter of general consent that something should be done now to help men and women from Eire who during the war joined His Majesty's Forces and helped us to beat our enemies. We do not know exactly how many such persons there were, but the number is probably not greatly in excess of 40,000. Of that number, it is estimated that about 10,000 have given home addresses in Eire upon demobilisation and many have already returned home. It will be remembered that questions have been put upon several occasions in this House and in another place. The Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister have expressed sympathy with the Eire volunteers and the statements made by them in reply contained promises that a settlement would be reached as soon as possible. There have been meetings between representatives of the Eire Government and officers of my Department, and I am very happy to say that the principles of working arrangements have now been approved by His Majesty's Government and by the Government of Eire. I am also very glad to be able to say that those principles have also been accepted by the Government of Northern Ireland.
Ex-Service men and women ordinarily resident in Eire before enlistment, who served in our Forces during the war and have returned to Eire after demobilisation, will be able to obtain when unemployed unemployment benefit at our rates and subject to our contribution conditions, up to a limit of 30 weeks, provided that they satisfy the other conditions for the receipt of benefit in force in Eire. Those conditions approximate closely to our own. The arrangement will run for two years from the date of operation, but can be extended if that is mutually agreed upon and the extension is necessary or desirable. The money to pay the benefit in Eire will come from the Unemployment Fund, into which the three Service Departments and the Treasury pay contributions to enable men and women who served in His Majesty's Forces to be treated on claiming benefit as if they had worked and paid contributions for every week they served in the Forces. The Bill is necessary to make the payments under the new arrangements.
Clause 1 provides that the date of operation of the Bill shall be fixed by Order in Council. It is hoped that the date can be soon. Clause I also provides, coupled with the agreed arrangement that beneficiaries must be persons ordinarily resident in Eire for not less than 30 weeks before service in His Majesty's Forces. Benefit must not exceed 180 days at the weekly rates of benefit now payable under the general scheme of unemployment insurance in this country. That rate for men of 21 years of age and over is 24s. a week and the usual increases for dependants will be paid. The number of children covered will be limited to two in order to adjust the payments to the family allowance scheme of Eire, which provides an allowance for any children after the first two. The persons covered will be ordinary members of His Majesty's Forces and there will be included the Women's Auxiliary Services, nurses and the medical and dental services. The Bill contains provisions in Clause 4 for making Regulations for any adaptations which may prove to be necessary upon the coming into full force of the National Insurance Act, 1946. Such Regulations will be laid before Parliament in the ordinary way. This special provision for the Eire volunteers is in the interests of men and women who came forward spontaneously to join our Forces during the war. We want to make them feel that the United Kingdom is not unmindful of the services they rendered.

Mr. Austin: My right hon. Friend has made no reference to volunteers in the Merchant Navy. If there has been spontaneous volunteering into the Merchant Navy by residents in Eire, is provision contemplated for them likewise?

Mr. Griffiths: The Bill is confined to those who served in the Forces. For those who served in the Merchant Navy, contributions would have been paid by the people concerned. The Bill provides for men and women who served in the Army, Navy or Air Force. I do not think there is anything contentious in the Bill. It enables us to do something for people for whom we have a deep regard because they came forward and volunteered to help us in the war.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: The Bill, like the last, will prove to be of a non-contentious character. Inglorious as

was the attitude of Eire during the great crisis through which we have passed, we shall all agree that everything possible should be done to safeguard the position of that large number of gallant volunteers who came from Eire to assist us in the struggle. Therefore, we welcome the provisions in the Bill. They are necessarily rather nebulous in character. I do not think I have ever before seen a Bill begin with words like these:
It His Majesty by Order in Council declares that arrangements have been entered into, and are in force"—
for certain purposes, then—
the Minister of National Isurance … may during the continuance in force of the arrangements make payments out of the Unemployment Fund.
Everything turns, not upon what is done in the Bill but upon what is contained in the arrangements into which the Minister is going to enter. The right hon. Gentleman has kindly given us some description of what those arrangements will be. It will be the first opportunity the House has had of endeavouring to appreciate precisely what those arrangements are. The right hon. Gentleman will therefore forgive me if I ask him or his Parliamentary Secretary to answer one or two questions about them. I would say, in the first place, that I am very glad to see that the Bill gives no recognition of any sort or kind to the endeavour which has been made on the other side of the Irish Channel, to establish a separate Irish nationality. The definition of these persons, both in the long Title and in the main operative Clauses of the Bill, is:
persons ordinarily resident in Eire.
I am particularly glad that that is the definition chosen by the Bill. It would have been a great disaster had we given any colour to the claim by Mr. de Valera that persons who reside in Eire are not British subjects. As I understand it, the plan is that these gallant volunteers, if they should fall unemployed at any time during the next two years, or within two years after their discharge from the Forces, draw unemployment benefit, broadly speaking, at the rate which is in force in this country. My only fear is that the arrangements themselves will tend to throw these men out of employment. The Minister said there was a possibility, almost amounting to a likelihood, that there would be some discrimination against these men in Eire.

Mr. J. Griffiths: It is essential to get this point clear. There have been very amicable discussions and negotiations, and the decision is that these men will get preference because of the fact that they served in our Forces I do not think that that ought to be represented as discrimination.

Mr. Peake: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for making the position clear, but what I am afraid of is this. So far as these men are concerned—I think there are 40,000 of them —if they fall out of employment in Eire, the cost will fall not on the Eire unemployment insurance funds but upon our own unemployment insurance funds. Therefore, it will be seen that if there is to be a certain amount of unemployment in Eire, it is greatly to the advantage of the authorities there that these men should be unemployed, rather than persons who have a claim upon their own insurance funds. I am, therefore, sorry that the arrangements contemplate an actual cash payment by us of the precise cost of paying unemployment benefit to these particular men. I would rather we had made a definite contribution, calculated upon some hypothetical basis, to the Eire unemployment insurance funds. That would not have led to any inducement to discriminate so far as employment is concerned, against men who have served in our Forces.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has considered these arrangements from that point of view. It would be a most deplorable thing if, out of our goodness of heart, in endeavouring to do the right thing by these people who volunteered and served in our Forces, and rendered us help in the war, we did something which, in fact, would turn out detrimental to their prospect of obtaining and retaining a steady job at a good rate of remuneration That is the only thing I fear about the arrangements proposed in the Bill. I hope the Minister has considered it and that he has planned in some way to meet it.
I take it that the actual administration of these benefits will be in the hands of officials of the Eire Government, and that we shall play no part in the day to day administration. We shall receive, I take it, certain records setting out lists of men who have registered as unemployed and at the end of it all we shall be pre-

sented from time to time with a bill which we have to pay. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman has entered into the only arrangement which it was open to him to agree to in this matter, but I express my own fear that the nature of the arrangements, which are intended to be generous, and generous as I believe them to be, may in fact prove detrimental to the prospects of men upon whom we seek to confer these benefits.

7.14 p.m.

Sir Ronald Ross: I have great satisfaction in being able to welcome this Bill, which does no more than justice to a very gallant band of Irishmen who came to fight in the cause of freedom during the recent war. Their position at present is a very unhappy one. I do not know whether hon. Members here realise the very trying position in which they find themselves. As has probably become apparent to some hon. Members in this House, we in Northern Ireland have a disinclination to becoming subject to the state of affairs which exists in Eire, and one of the reasons for that is the extraordinary inadequacy of their social services. Even if these men were getting unemployment benefit on the Eire scale, they would be infinitely worse off than they should be. When one considers that there are frozen wage levels there, and a very high cost of living, one appreciates how necessary it is that these men should have this assistance from us to whose help they came when there was greatest need.
I am very interested in the figure the Minister has given as to the probable number of volunteers as far as can be computed—40,000—because that is about the figure which I always thought was probable. Some rather extravagant claims have been made from time to time and I have never been able to find any grounds for supposing them to be accurate. That therefore is the quantity, and as regards quality, we can all agree that the contributions received from the fighting men of Eire who were prepared to fight for liberty, was a very grand one.
I am a little anxious, as the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) was, about the fear of victimisation as regards this class. I do not know that I congratulate myself, or ourselves, very much on citizens of Eire being treated as British citizens because, so far as I know,


they are only British citizens when it helps them. When they can get any advantage by considering themselves otherwise, they regard themselves as anything but British citizens. But it is very important to see that there is no victimisation of those who fought in the cause of the United Nations. In particular, there is one class who certainly have been practically deprived of all rights of human beings. These were the gallant, if slightly irresponsible, gentlemen who were members of the Eire defence forces and who, instead of carrying out their rather less arduous duties of being neutral, deserted in order to join up and fight. I hope they will not be in any way victimised. I would be interested to know what powers our Ministry have of seeing that these funds are properly distributed to those who are qualified to receive them.
I have the greatest sympathy with the Minister as regards the negotiations which he had to carry through. I can quite understand that they were by no means easy and I congratulate him on having achieved what appears to be a working agreement. We shall see how it works out in practice. I am glad to have been able to intervene to support the Bill which, as I have said, gives no more than justice to a gallant class of Irishmen.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Austin: I am very gratified to see the reasonable way in which this Bill has been met on all sides of the House. It is also gratifying to see that in the delicate matters of negotiation we have been successful in dealing with the Government of Eire, and we must commend the Minister accordingly. To me this Bill symbolises the gratitude of Great Britain for the services rendered to it in times of stress by nationals or residents, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite said, of Eire. These residents of Eire performed valiant services in the various Forces, and the only flaw that has arisen is that mentioned by the right hon. Member for Leeds North (Mr. Peake) regarding the unfair position in which some of the 40,000 may find themselves owing to the fact that they will receive unemployment benefit from this country instead of from their own funds. Of that 40,000, I presume there were volunteers from all classes of society just as volunteers in this country were drawn from all classes of society. It may well be that

10,000 or 12,000 will be in no need of pecuniary assistance. However it may well be that there will be the problem of a solid core of 15,000 or 20,000 of these ex-volunteers who may find themselves in distress, who may find themselves unemployed, and kept unemployed, because of this natural pressure on the part of the Eire Government to pay unemployment benefit to their own nationals only, with the corresponding exclusion of these people.
If I may suggest it to the Minister, here is an opportunity, when we are short of labour, to set up an office in this country to which those people could apply for employment when in need. To give an illustration, I may mention that at almost every Question time, we have raised the difficult question of Polish nationals being sent to this country purely on the basis of objection to Socialism in their own country. If we want to express our gratitude to these Eire nationals, we would be rendering a service to the volunteers and to this country if we could persuade some of them to take up employment in this country in various spheres. That is a suggestion which the Minister perhaps would do well to look into.

7.22 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Steele): I feel a deep sense of gratitude that in my first speech from this Bench I should be dealing with a Measure which has received the wholehearted support of the House—no doubt in the future I shall not be in the same happy position. In view of this fact, my task is easy, and I shall confine myself to short replies to some of the questions raised.
The first, put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), was with regard to the payment of benefit. Various methods were considered and, after due consideration, the present method was adopted because it was felt by both sides to be the best. It is true that the administration of the scheme will be in the hands of officials in Eire, but I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend will watch the matter closely and that there will be a close association between our own Government and the Government of Eire so that a check will be made of the various cases. That point was also raised by the hon.


Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) and it was good to hear the appreciation he expressed to my right hon. Friend on this matter. My right hon. Friend will have power under the Bill to go into all the detailed arrangements of the supervision of the scheme, and, as I have said, there will be, on both sides, the closest examination of all the various cases.

Sir R. Ross: May I ask one question? Supposing individual complaints of victimisation should come in, would it be possible to raise them in this House with our Minister, so that he may take them up with the corresponding authorities in Eire?

Mr. Steele: We can really deal only with benefits; the other matter is outside the scope of the arrangements.
Regarding the suggestion made by my hon Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) about the employment of these people in this country, arrangements have already been made and there is an office of the Ministry of Labour in Dublin. Anyone who wishes can make application to that office for the various types of employment which are open in this country as a result of the present man-power shortage and we have in fact already about 106,000 workers from Eire here now. My right hon. Friend dealt very ably and frankly with the history of this matter as has been appreciated in all parts of the House. We recognise that it is a special problem which has arisen out of the war, and that it will be for a limited period only. With those remarks I trust that we may now have the Second Reading of this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole. House, for Friday.—[Mr. Collin-dridge.]

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (EIRE VOLUNTEERS) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No 69.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to empower the Minister of National Insurance to give effect to arrangements for paying unemployment benefit to persons ordinarily resident in Eire who have served in His Majesty's Forces, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, and the National Insurance Act, 1946."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. James Griffiths.]

Resolution to be reported upon Friday.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932 to the Borough of Redcar, a copy of which Order was presented on nth October, be approved"—[Mr. Ede.]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the County Borough of South Shields, a copy of which Order was presented on nth October, be approved.
I am informed, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first occasion on which the Secretary of State has had to move an Order relating to his own constituency.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the City of Salford, a copy of which Order was presented on nth October, be approved." —[Mr. Ede.]

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Collindridge.]

Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Seven o'Clock.